Due Process For Traffic Ticket Defendants Threatened
By James Baxter, NMA President
There’s a random pattern around the country where state and local courts are systematically making it harder and more expensive for ticket recipients to fight traffic tickets.
This is an admission by the judiciary and state and local governments that there is growing public resistance to being ripped off via bad laws, unethical enforcement, and revenue hungry courts.
Defendants are growing in numbers, they are coming to court better prepared to defend themselves, the police are being found lacking in knowledge and compliance with mandated procedures, ignorant arbitrary judges are being exposed, and pro-se defendants are mucking up the good “ole” boy plea bargaining system and demanding trials.
This could lead to the collapse of the whole money grubbing system that has evolved around the traffic ticket industry.
To protect itself, the “system” is fighting back. Here are a few of its strategies being implemented around the country:
1) The State of Massachusetts passed a law requiring traffic ticket defendants to pay $25 to contest a ticket; non-refundable.
To appeal a case to a more legitimate court requires payment of $50, again; non-refundable. Win, lose, or draw the court gets $75 — regardless of the merit of the ticket. What an incredible incentive for the police to write bogus tickets by the thousands! Why not, every ticket will generate at least $25 to $75, regardless of the outcome.
2) Some of the ticket camera operations run their own court systems.
There is no thought given to the obvious conflict of interest, plus requiring pre-payment of the fine and additional fees to get a one sided hearing. Even when solid evidence is provided that shows the defendant is innocent, the evidence is ignored and the victim’s money is kept.
3) If defendants learn of a law that requires certain procedures be implemented before enforcement activities can commence, the law is changed or eliminated.
For example, in California, the speed trap law required traffic engineering studies be done every five years, and the speed limit was to be set according to the results of the study. Many communities sloughed off on the engineering studies and as a result speeding tickets had to be dismissed. The State Legislature addressed this by extending the time period between studies from once every five years to once every ten years.
4) In Marion County, Indiana the local court is telling defendants that if they challenge their ticket in court they will be assessed additional fines up to $2500!
Let’s see, I can pay my $150 bogus ticket or I can challenge it in court and be on the hook for ten times, or more, than the cost of the original ticket. What’s the wisest thing to do? That would be a rhetorical question.
5) Under the guise of classifying traffic tickets as civil violations, state and local units of government strip defendants of the right to discovery, jury trials, public defenders and the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The testimony of police officers is openly given more credibility than that of defendants, supposedly because they have no direct or financial interest in the outcome—other than bonuses, retirement benefits, preferential work schedules, promotions, and income-pumping overtime; all rewards for being a “producer.”
The catch-22 is that to challenge this cascade of lost due process rights takes us right back to the same court system that is bent on protecting its prerogatives and its cash flow, along with reducing its work load.
Here’s an idea; lets eliminate all the arbitrary, irrational, pre-emptive, and just plain stupid traffic laws seemingly intended to make every driver in America a criminal. That will kill the cash flow, but it will also cut back on the courts’ work load.
The trade-off is less money, but more time on the golf course. That can’t be too bad a deal.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
The NMA always goes back to the same thing, Every law is to generate revenue because thecourts, government and cops are all either money hungry or corrupt. Of course they can not offer anything beyond speculation and 1/2 truths as proof. What I don’t understand is how they can manipulate so many seemingly intelligent people into believing it.
As with all of the articles that I have seen presented by Jim Baxter this one is filled with factual inaccuracies. Of course he presents it in such a way that he looks credible and all of those who have recieved traffic tickets because of one unlawful behavior or another choose to accept Mr Baxter at his word without ever checking the facts. There is a word to describe these people “idiotic” If you take any on Mr Baxter’s article posted here on the NMA website and check the facts you’ll see that I am right. Mr Baxter gets away with this purposeful misdirection because people here only read a portion of his articles and any mistakes look unintentional. There are way too many factual inaccuracies in all of Mr Baxter’s articles for them to be anything other than purposeful misdirection. Mr Baxter makes alot of money off the poor Idiots that join the NMA because they believe what he writes. Mr Baxter has found a way to interject himself into the revenue stream of traffic tickets, it is in his best interest to make you distrust the police and the court system, he makes ore money that way. There are two entities to the NMA a not for profit foundation and a for profit corporation. The direction that many of you will take is to insult me for my views. That is the approach of someone that is ignorant about the facts and just wants to be supportive of a particular side. Insult away it only proves how little you actually know on the subject and about the corporation you are supporting with your membership.
I have learned by discussing various subjects with various members of the NMA that the position of the NMA on any of those subjects is entirely predictable. All one has to do is look at what will hold the motorists least accountable for their actions and that is what the NMA supports. Driving is a task and while performing that task drivers must make choices. Not all of those choices will be to do the correct thing. In order for our society to flourish we must have rules that dictate what behaviors are socially acceptable and what behaviors are not. If a motorist chooses to exhibit a behavior that is socially unacceptable(unlawful) then for the good of society his propensity to exhibit that behavior must be modified through a reward/punishment approach.
The NMA vigorously portrays the offenders of many traffic infractions as being oppressed by the law. Those offenses include but are not limited to running red lights, speeding, Driving under the influence or while intoxicated. Mr Baxter has a tencency to portray the law as “intended to make every driver in America a criminal”. Look up the word criminal and you will see that a criminal is one who has committed a crime. I don’t believe there exists such a place that failing to stop at a traffic light or stop sign is considered a crime. Although there are traffic offenses that are crimes they can hardly be described as a law “intended to make every driver in America a criminal”, unless of course you feel it is normal behavior for “every driver in America” to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, intoxicated or recklessly. He specifically makes reference to laws treating you as a criminal because it will envoke rage in you and a distrust of the government.
In #5) Mr Baxter portrays that “The testimony of police officers is openly given more credibility than that of defendants, supposedly because they have no direct or financial interest in the outcome—other than bonuses, retirement benefits, preferential work schedules, promotions, and income-pumping overtime; all rewards for being a “producer.”” Police officers do not have any interest in the outcome of a traffic ticket beyond having an unlawful behavior punished and/or corrected. Police officers do NOT get bonuses for the number of citations they write or the number of those citations that result in convictions as Mr Baxter has implied. There are no retirement benefits given to officers based upon their citation rate or conviction rate as Mr baxter implies. For the most part Police officers are civil servants and are governed by civil service laws and therfore are not promoted based upon how many tickets they write or how many of those tickets esult in convictions. Promotions are normally performed through exhibited proficiency on a civil service exam. As far as overtime is concerned an officer is only given overtime with regards to citations he wrote if the court appearance happens to fall on his time off and that overtime is usually contractually capped. Any other overtime is usually given on a volunteer basis or by seniority not performance with respect to traffic citations. Mr Baxter has taken the time to lie to you about the testimony of and the compensation for testimony of police officers. That testimony is being taken is evidence of due process existing.
#1) and #4) are designed to discourage offenders who know they are guilty from pursuing a not guilty plea through wasting the courts time and resources, while still providing those who believe they are innocent with an avenue of recourse to prove their innocence. That this avenue exists means that due process is present.
#2)is nothing more than Mr Baxter’s extention of his views on automated enforcement. He references a hearing and calls it “one sided” The fact that there is a hearing is evidence that the motorists’ right to due process has not been violated.
#3)It sounds like the government got wise to a back door defense that was written into the speed limit law(probably suggested by a member of the NMA to require new speed surveys every 5 years even though the rate at which the 85th percentile would creep upward .25-.50mph each year would result in no increase in the speed limit within 5 years or a maximum creep of 2.5mph. It was rewritten so that minimal creep of 2.5mph in 10 years would not result in an increase in speed limit but a maximum creep of 5.0mph in 10 years would move the speed limit up to the next 5mph increment. There is no engineering reasoning behind requiring re-surveys every 5 years if the 85th percentile couldn’t possible move that much and was either inserted as a back door defense to provide a defense to anyone on a highway that the periodic re-survey wasn’t performed on or as a blatent waste of resources in an attempt to free us all of the oppressive nature of our societal laws.
After reading Mr Baxter’s article one should ask themselves did Mr Baxter even address the issue of his title “Due Process For Traffic Ticket Defendants Threatened”? I submitt that Mr Baxter did not substanially address the subjet matter of Due Process and the 5 things he listed have little or nothing to do with Due process. This is a common practice of the NMA to make a statement and then present other factually appearing comments as evidence of the statement even though the evidence is only marginally associated with the statement.
George I have to laugh at your comments
“Alleged traffic offenses are criminal” There are only a few traffic offenses that are crimes for the most part they are all lesser offenses of law. In order for a traffic offense to be criminal it would need to be of a misdemeanor or felony level, not a lesser misdemeanor, violation or offense level Mr Baxter implies that the laws wrongfully makes criminals of all American drivers because if it provokes those who believe him. Once provoked they donate to the NMA or join the NMA either way it is money in his pocket.
“Read slower, James Baxter never said the police will be given direct plunder from the court. Bribes, no they are ‘campaign contributions’.)
This implies that Police officers are elected officials and are given financial rewards to keep them in office. This was I am sure just poor wording on your part. maybe you could rethink it and resubmit the though with some clarity.
TheRaw420 says:
December 16, 2009 at 10:38 amRandy,
“Why, you sound like an Anti Patriotic Tyrant.”
This is just comical. James Baxter outlines a methodology for bankrupting the courts and Randy is seen as the Anti-Patriotic Tyrant.
Any of you here that said that Mr Baxter’s article is roght on obviously have little experience in the field of traffic, traffic safety or traffic law. I doubt if any of them really kow what Due process even is Randy!
Phil, you have the lowest standards I’ve ever seen. I believe most Americans have higher standards than you do.
Laws which don’t make sense and serve no purpose will be widely disobeyed. Most traffic laws are purposeless and senseless.
Infractions are a criminal offense, all tickets are criminal allegations. It is either criminal, or civil, there is no “in between” in America. Since it is the STATE trying to rob you of money/property, it is a criminal charge resulting in a fine if you are found guilty.
Do you want proof that traffic laws are designed to make criminals of all Americans? Here it is: There are over 40,000 Vehicle Codes in California. That is ridiculous. Why would our police force need over 40,000 vehicle codes? The answer: To pull anyone over for any reason at any time (40,000 plus reasons). Case Closed.
Apparently I do not have the lowest standard because I demand truthful articles and I check the so called facts held within before I pledge my undying devotion to an organization that is manipulating and using it’s members to achieve personal goals. An offense of law under the vehicle and traffic law is not a criminal offense unless it is a misdemeanor or felony. You must be an NMA member because every NMA member I discuss anything with always uses the same tactics misquote, misrepresent and misdirect. What I said was that Mr Baxter was wrong when he said “seemingly intended to make every driver in America a criminal.” because in order for those laws to make every driver in america a criminal the offenses of law would need to be crimes. There are very few traffic offenses that are crimes and therefore Mr Baxter misrepresented the facts. I love the way you NMA members give proof too you make a statement without citing any documentation and consider it proof. If California has 40,000 vehicle codes then there are 40,000 ways that Californians have discovered to do the wrong thing and/or violate the ight of way of another person. Give me a list of those you feel are ridiculous, no doubt speed limit laws will be on the top of the list I am sure. That the laws are inconvenient for you personally leads me to the conclusion that you are an unlawful person. The state doesn’t rob you of money/property you voluntarily give it to them. I have seen many NMA members refer to traffic citations as “taxes” and police officers who write those citations as tax collectors. Let’s examine what that tax should be called. If the government tells you in advance that if you drive below 65mph they will not collect this “tax” from you, then you exceed 65mph and are assessed a fine(the so called tax) the only thing I can think of to call this “tax” is the “stupidity tax” all you have to do to avoid this “tax” is comply with the law. That you chose not to avoid this “tax” and then complain that you had to pay it is the actions of an idiot.
In the United States, traffic laws are regulated by the States and municipalities through their respective traffic codes. Most of these are based at least in part on the Uniform Vehicle Code(an international treaty under the authority of the United Nations, the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic), but there are variations from state to state. In states such as Florida, traffic law and criminal law are separate, therefore, unless someone flees a scene of an accident, commits vehicular homicide or manslaughter, they are only guilty of a minor traffic offense(this is how most of the United States works). However, states such as South Carolina have completely criminalized their traffic law, so, for example, you are guilty of a misdemeanor simply for travelling 5 miles over the speed limit(States that use this methodology are in the minority).
An infraction which is a lesser charge than a Misdemeanor is still a criminal charge. To call it a civil penalty is fallacy.
In order for a civil suit to be brought by the State harm would have had to have been done to the State which caused a loss or a cost that would need to be reimbursed or returned via the settlement or fine amount if you were to argue it is a civil matter.
That won’t hold water as running red lights, speeding, and other such offenses cause no cost or damage to the city for it to succeed in “suing” you civily. Since it is not a Civil matter, it is a Criminal matter, end of story.
There are states such as Michigan where traffic offenses are civil infractions. These offenses are adjudicated in a civil court, Ironically where the prosecution can appeal a loss. These offenses are NOT crimes and therefore anyone convicted of them is not a criminal. As far as the offenses adjudicated in criminal court they are lesser offenses than a Misdemeanor(the lowest form of a crime) and the offenses themselves are not crimes even though adjudicated in a criminal court. Therefore anyone who is convicted of these lesser offenses is still NOT a criminal as Mr Baxter implies in his article.
The NMA only pays if you take your court case to trial in court with the officer present and still lose a “speeding only” case.
Since I haven’t lost a speeding case since 10/1/06, my driving record is now clean of all point worthy violations except for one from an overzealous Nevada Highway Patrol officer. That makes me have 1 point (u-turns don’t count as a point I guess if it’s just a generic “sign” violation). So my latest insurance quote is quite cheap as it should be, since I’m a “good” driver. A good driver is one who doesn’t have any accidents in 3 years or more than 1 point in the last 3 years by the insurance companies definition.
Since I’ve been winning some cases left and right, the NMA hasn’t had to cough up anything yet. I wish they’d bump up the bonus to fight your tickets in court to cover “ALL” moving violations, and not just speeding.
Randy, you’d lose that million dollars. I do not tailgate or perform any dangerous driving manuevers. I never endanger anyone or anybody on the road. That is why I don’t create accidents. It’s not luck, luck doesn’t last over 15 years. Idiots like you were telling me it’s just a matter of time 10 years ago. Back then I said I only have 5 years of doing this, but I’ll bet you a Million dollars I’ll be able to say the same thing 10 years later. We’ll here we are, and I’ve won that bet.
And for someone that likes to call people law breakers, you should read the law before you speak or write.
First of all, I was going 65 in a 55 zone. However, all speed limits are 65 in CA unless otherwise posted. How so you might ask, well, 65 is the maximum speed limit unless otherwise noted (for example, where it says 70 is the maximum speed limit. All other speed limit signs in CA that don’t include the words “maximum” are simply “guidelines” to go by. But under good weather conditions, with high visibility, low traffic, wide lanes, divided center medians, the speed limit always diverts to a higher number, up to 65.
Therefore, I was not breaking the law. You need to read up on California’s basic speed law. You aren’t breaking the law UNLESS you are also driving unsafely FOR CONDITIONS. That is the whole point of the speed survey, to find out what reasonable people drive during reasonable conditions. Mind you…. that’s an average, not the fastest “limit” you can drive safely under IDEAL conditions.
What ever Andres. It comes down to you are an idiot that should not be on the road. You make up your own laws or change them so you feel like you are correct. Get a bus pass so you do not hurt anyone.
Is NMA paying all of your tickets that you go to court for? What is your yearly insurance cost?
If all California drivers are like you they must have Billions of dollars of income from traffic tickets in California. I have driven out there many many years ago but I do not remember drivers like you at the time. Maybe they just changed with all of your dumb laws that you now have.
Randy has finally said one thing of truth and one thing we can AGREE on:
Fines are unfair to the poor and do not punish the rich at all.
While a $500 red light camera ticket could put someone poor into the poor house, $500 is chump change to a pro athlete.
If I won the lottery for $100 million dollars, I’d self insure my automobiles and driving and just pay the freakin’ fines as I get them.
Or maybe I’d invest in lawyers and appeals and get some of these insane traffic laws and court cases overturned and corrected by real judges that actually care about the law when you go ABOVE municipal/local courts.
Again Andres, they need to get you off the street. I would bet a million dollars you also tailgate and do other bad driving habits just because you are the best driver in the world. Good driver does not sound like what you are but luckiy so far with your poor driving.
To show you all that I am not the immature one, but the Sheriffs and Police are immature, here are my last 3 citation violations (2 on one citation so therefore last 2 tickets had 3 charges).
1. Sign Violation (Generic Vehicle Code in CA) for basically failing to obey a traffic sign. What the officer knew lying in wait is that there was absolutely no legitimate reason for the “no u-turn sign” in the location in question during non rush hour times. Also, the sign is poorly posted in a hard to see location where the typical driver would not see it while making their “legal” left turn or supposedly “illegal U-turn. It is a left turn lane median situation with 3 lanes on both side for a total of 6 lanes. The sign was clearly obstructed from view in my vehicle which I had several photographs in court show. I had no intent to disobey the sign and if it was posted in a better spot I would have seen it. Also, my u-turn did not affect traffic, and there’s probably a hundred violations a day at this particular left turn/u-turn spot. The Sheriff’s were lying in wait in a Best Buy parking lot just waiting for someone to inadvertantly miss this obscure and ridiculous sign which has no reason to be there other than to generate revenue. I fell victim because I was unfamiliar with the area and safety considerations were more important to me than trying to find these semi-hidden signs.
The officer refused me the county seat request per VC 40502b so we got into an argument. He got pissed I signed the ticket with the notation “Officer refused County Seat requested” and then added a 2nd charge to the ticket for “bald tires” after I had already signed the ticket mind you.
The judge eventually found me guilty on count 1 and not guilty on count 2 (I think in part because the officer perjured himself during his testimony about the second count).
The other ticket was for speeding in a 55 zone. HOwever, the speed survey which was 4 years and 10 months old showed the 85th percentile was 57, not 55. Also, it seemed to have been taken about a half mile past where I received the ticket. A reasonable and prudent driver would slow down from 70 to about 55 where the survey was taken, but where the officer’s hide out on this stretch of underposted roadway is a half mile prior to that point where you’d tend to slow down. It’s on a downhill straightaway with 2 lanes in each direction, and is divided by a concrete median! No reason the speed limit should not be 65, which in fact, it legally is since the 55 MPH speed limit sign does not say MAXIMUM before the words speed limit. Due to that fact, the officer has to prove you were driving in an UNSAFE manner in court in order for the judge to find you guilty of speeding.
The Sheriff’s refused to cooperate and provide radar manuals, calibration logs and records, officer notes/report on the back of the ticket, and the speed survey (complete). I made an informal discovery request, got ignored, then made a formal motion. The judge ruled to grant my motion for discovery, and ordered the DA and Sheriff’s to provide the requested materials. The trial was only a week after the motion hearing, so they had to hurry. They did not obey the court order (another broken law and makes the DA and Sheriff’s guilty of contempt of court), and then of course a week later I’d of bet the farm against a dollar that they weren’t going to show up. Of course they didn’t. Case Dismissed. I win 2 of 3.
But again, no court and police officer time and tax money would be wasted if the officer’s didn’t insist on writing completely bogus tickets in the first place.
The was nothing wrong with me going 70 there, (in fact I was only going 65 but his radar said 70). There was nothing wrong with my u-turn as it didn’t impact any cars freedom of movement, and certainly… bald tires are not dangerous in the summer time in Santee, CA, where it rains 3 times a year.
Andres reading your statements, imature idiot stands out. You are a person that likes to break the law and look for any loopholes to get out of it even if you know you are guilty. Go take the bus.
Going 70 mph in a 55 mph zone you should have gotten a ticket. They just need to get rid of the loopholes to get you off the street.
If organizations like NMA are supporting guys like you it is a bad organization. You could change the name to the law breakers club.
I do not have a problem with an organzition pushing to make legal changes that are needed but to back up law brekers is a bad thing.
It’s outrageous that you have to pay for a ticket first before you have a hearing. It’s a violation of due process according to the Bill of Rights. Also, the base fine of a ticket is increased 1000% with all the added fees and assesments. This is a violation of unreasonable fines levied that is in the Bill of Rights also! We need to get the ACLU or some sort of class action lawsuit filed on behalf of “the people.”
Jeff Lamb I will give you a million dollars if you can prove your last statement. It is a lie. Go check it out yourself. Do not blindly believe what James says in an article because it was made up. It is just too bad that you can not throw peope in jail for making knowingly false statements like that.
Randy, keep your million $. Next time you get a ticket, ask the clerk for a “Traffic Infraction Fixed Penalty schedule.” I don’t get many tickets, but I happened to get 2 nuisance tickets in the past 6 months. This is the breakdown on the 2 tickets.
Section Base State County DNA Court Sur Ems Total
Fine Pa* PA*/10 PA* PA*/10 Chg. PA10 Fee
23123.5 $20 $20 $14 $4 $10 $4 $69 $141
Driving while using a cell phone
27007 $35 $40 $28 $8 $20 $7 $8 $146
Use of audible sound system outside of vehicle.
So, the cell phone ticket started with a base fine of $20 and
with all the added fees the total was $141, 700% of the base fine. The loud stereo ticket base fine was $35 and with all the added fees the total was $146, thats appr. 430% higher.
1000% was a facetiuos exaggeration, but now you get the point!
I was going to challenge the court under the Bill of Rights Amendment #V says that, “no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” The property being money, and the fact that we are compelled to pay for a ticket on the word of a cop without being found guilty first in a court of law!
Amemdment #VIII says, “Excessive bail shall not be required,nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
To me, it’s an excessive fine when it starts out at $20 and ends up at $141 because our ticket payment funds so many other programs.
It’ cruel and unusual punishment that I had to type all this to explain this to you. Will somebody else out there confirm to Randy that knows about this.
Remember Randy, next ticket, ask the clerk for a
“Traffic Infraction Fixed Penalty Schedule”
Section III {b} of the vehicle code
I decided not to challenge the court because it was cost prohibitive. Thats one of the problems. The lines are so long and they are so busy, they got us by the gonads because it just costs us too much to fight it individually!
Jeff Lamb I drive so I do not get tickets. I do not say that it is not possible for anyone to make a mistake but if you make an effort your ticket number is close to 0.
I have learned that it does not save much time by speeding and also at the same time saw what stupid people do when they have to keep their 9 mph over the limit no matter what do. Stupid things to save 5 or 6 seconds of time.
Ticket costs to go toward a lot of things. One of which is people like Andres Dolson for example that go to court even when they know they are guilty and know they would be found guilty if the policeman shows up. That adds to court costs and we all end up paying for that except if they charge you the whole price when you go to court which I have not heard of. Figure it out how much it costs for him to show up. You have 3 or 4 people’s time tied up at the courthouse along with possible overtime while he is there along with keeping the building up and other cost. Your $20 original ticket may be what goes to the police department or whatever I do not know but the ticket is much higher for things like I mentioned. At the same time if tickets were only $20 there would be very few that would look at the signs as Andres Dolson stated.
Jeff Lamb also your excessive costs are excessive for some and not for others. It depends on your ability to pay. That is the only major problem with tickets as I see them. A $150 ticket for someone making $150,000 is minor but it is a true hardship if someone makes $20,000. I do not know if they can get any kind of relief or not but that is the only thing that is not fair about ticket costs.
Randy, you know I kinda took the conversation off the beaten path, I wasn’t even commenting on the other guy that was talking about speeding. He did sound immature and rediculous! I’m 50 years old and have never been at fault in an accident. I haven’t even had a moving violation in probably 20 years! My penny anty tickets for $141 and $146 were nuisance tickets and not serious moving violations. When I was in the clerks line I talked to people that said their speeding and running light tickets were $500-$600!
I had just pulled out of a parking lot and put my cell phone down, but a sherrifs deputy saw me with it up to my ear in the parking lot and just assumed I still had it up to my ear, so he pulled me over and gave me a cell phone ticket.
I was just venting my frustration over the process. When you go in for a ticket, they want you to pay the fee in advance. We should be able to confront our accuser first without having to pay upfront like you’re assumed to be guilty.
When you’ve already paid in advance, what motivation does a judge have to find you not guilty and return your money?
Unfortunately the company I worked for went out of business and I’m only making minimum wage now! I’ve gone through my savings just trying to keep everything together! $140 is alot of $ to me right now. They won’t let you make payments for a court date. If you want to contest it, you have to pay the full amount at once. Only way to make payments is if you don’t contest it. So it seems only the “well off” can afford justice now!
I drive the speed limit and obey all traffic laws, there’s no way I can afford an expensive moving violation. They’re really rackin’ peoples’ asses right now!
In regards to the loud music ticket, yes, I had the stereo up a little, but thats so arbitrary to a street cop. There was much more noise around me.
I’m no idiot, just a very smart intelligent individual who thinks for himself and doesn’t believe all the “lies” as you do.
I’m educated enough to know that most accidents are caused by drivers going below 70 MPH.
You say if everyone went 65 then traffic would flow more smoothly and safely. Well, why not have everyone go 85 MPH and then traffic would flow even MORE smoothly and MORE safely. Better yet, why not 100 MPH where straight-aways allow.
Also, your assertion that if the cops allow people to go 80 then they will start going 90 is false. The truth is people pay no attention to the 2 numbers on an aluminum plate and will always drive what is COMFORTABLE to them, regardless of the 2 numbers on a sign. If the speed limit were suddenly changed to 100 MPH across the US, do you really think people in an old Geo Metro would go 100 MPH (even if they could, which I doubt it’s top speed exceeds 90).
Or how about people in a Yugo? You’d be a Moron to think people would drive faster than the speed limit regardless what the limit is set at. If it’s set at 120, do you think I’d go 130? People drive what is safe and prudent for conditions, and in CA, that is often 85 to 90 MPH on our long stretches of straight freeway.
Andres Dolson you are the idiot to think almost all here would not go over the limit. All but a very few would. If the speed limit was increased too fast for their car they would go buy a new car.
For one if you did increase the limit to 85 that speed is not as near as safe as 65 particularly when there is traffic. 85 when there is little to no traffic can be very safe and is only a danger to the person driving that fast. Since all cars do not drive 85 even if the limit was that fast when you have traffic it causes congestion and a danger with different vehicle speeds along with poor gas mileage.
You are a stupid idiot if you think that people do not look to see what the sign says. STUPID. Even many here say that they drive less than 15 mph over or whatever speed that the police usually let them drive at without stopping them. Then in states where you get charged with wreckless driving at 20 mph over the limit. Are you stupid enough to think some drive 24 over the limit because they do not look at the sign? As I said you may be like George in that you are educated but do not have any common sense.
CA drivers are bad, but that group certainly doesn’t include me. I’ve told you I’m an excellent driver, probably the best there is, and in fact, for all intents and purposes, a professional driver.
My records speaks for itself, almost 16 years of driving all without causing even a single accident. The world needs more driver’s like me, as then there would be no accidents anywhere. That would mean a world without traffic jams.
To answer your question as to why I have to speed when speed limits are abitrarily and purposefully set too low, the answer is simple:
1) Time is money.
2) Efficiency matters.
3) Safety matters (going faster reduces my chances of having an accident)
4) Why follow laws that make no sense, have no value, and produce no positive results?
5) Fight to change the system that is corrupt, wrong, and unacceptable.
6) Improve traffic flow and effiiciency by reducing my minutes on the road.
7) Reduce gas wastage by reducing time spent idling due to people driving too slow for conditions.
8) My time is limited, as I don’t plan on living forever, so if I can save an hour here or there by driving as fast as safely possible, I will do so.
Andres Dolson it comes down to you are an idiot. You bring up the same lies as what are posted on here all the time. Believe it or not if everyone drove one speed like 65 mph limit that you said there would be almost no accidents and the traffic flow would be dozens of times better than when people are driving all different speeds. I have no idea where in your brain you would come up with driving faster is safer. Driving slower and with the flow of all the other cars with no passing would increase your mileage about 25%. Your few minutes of time saved on the highway are taken up many times by the hours you spend going to and from and in court. YOu say your life is short but it could be a lot shorter with your terrible driving practices. If you slow down and relax and if you are able to set a cruise control your stress level will also decrease and your life on earth would significantly increase.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Randy, you seem illiterate.
I said there was one or two cases in my life where I was technically “guilty” that I did go to court for. I didn’t go to waste anyone’s time though, the officer is the one that is wasting everyone’s time in issuing the ticket in the first place. If he hadn’t of wrote the ticket, then we wouldn’t have had to waste his time, my time, the court’s time, and other clerks and police and DA personnel involved since I always ask for discovery.
Most of the time, the officer’s get it completely wrong, and either have terrible power’s of observation, terribly misinterpret the Vehicle Code, or are just plain committing treason and terrorists of the people.
Sometimes I’ve been found guilty even when I was innocent. If I don’t fight the one’s where I’m guilty, then I’ll never have a case dismissed where I am guilty. Fighting each and every case is the only way to keep things relatively balanced and keep a 50% success rate since being innocent isn’t a guarantee you’ll be found “not guilty.”
Unfortunately in traffic court, due process is almost non-existant with no jury and the requirement of being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt being ignored by most “judges/commissioners/traffic referees”
The truth of the matter is I was in college for 6 years so in those years I didn’t drive very many miles. In high school I drove very little as well too. So in 15 years, I’ve averaged about 15K miles a year, but many more lately. Still, if I haven’t caused any accidents, then why all the tickets, something must be rotten here, and that is the “ticket” system itself, not my driving!
And, yes, I don’t believe all laws are bad or stupid. However, most speed laws are absolutely useless, worthless, and pointless.
Unfortunately, in CA, if you drive in CA, you are around terrible drivers all the time that cause accidents (sometimes unavoidable). I’d wager you don’t live in CA if you’ve driven all those miles accident free. The truth is… all the bad drivers in CA, aren’t the fast ones, they are the slow pokes that cause accidents.
Andres Dolson we agree to disagree. You do not have all the information because as you say you follow sites like this as gospel and make sure you do not do any research into the truth. You say it is all the slow pokes that cause accidents. Well it is the people like you that drive well over the limit that rear end them or if they go to pass someone you come out of nowhere and an accident happens. You say that CA drivers are bad drivers. It is because of people like you that they are bad drivers. You make your own laws that you follow. YOu do not follow basic driving rules you make up your own. That is why there are police. To enforce and make people drive better. If they let you and others go when they see you driving 80 mph in a 65 mph zone then you or others will then try for 90. Police are there to keep you in check and drive responsibly. From what you have descibed to me you are not a good driver. If you can not make it through life without getting a ticket you have major problems. Police are very very ever wrong. I am sorry if they were wrong once if they were to you but it is the exception.
You did not respond why you need to drive 15 mph or faster than the speed limit to make it through life.
Randy Randy Randy….. Where shall I start.
First, you make a lot of assumptions, most of which are completely false.
Second, you seem to have a misguided trust in law enforcement and the criminal justice system as it pertains to traffic enforcement.
Third, Yes, I’ve often had to go to court to “PROVE” my innocense, but by the Constitution I shouldn’t have to, it is the Prosecution that should have to PROVE I’m guilty.
Fourth, our forefathers that wrote the constitution were much smarter and much wiser than the idiots that think red light cameras are a good idea, or that lower speed limits somehow improve safety. Our current crop of judges seem to think they know better than our forefathers did, but they are sadly and gravely mistaken.
Fifth, yes, I was innocent many of the times I went to battle it out in court. I’ve found that when the officer has no case at all and is completely out of left field, they tend to not show up and the case is dismissed. When they have a more black and white (he said, she said) type case, they do tend to show up (such as for the maximum speed law in CA where going 65.1 MPH is CRIMINAL in a 65 MPH zone and it doesn’t matter why or how you were speeding, just that you were in fact going more than 65 MPH). So you could be driving a dying relative to the hospital, you are still guilty under the insane maximum speed law.
Sixth, yes, I’ve been cited where both the officer and I knew he was full of ****. There was a case of mistaken identity where I was pulled over for a violation I didn’t commit at a freeway onramp I was never at on the day in question. I got on one entrance later than where he said the violation occurred (he didn’t show in court but wasted my time and gas and energy in going to court myself).
Seventh, either an incompetent or drunk officer said I was going 58 in a zone which should be 50 but is posted at 35 (illegally by speed trap laws in my book), but I was really only going 35 to 40 so for him to believe his errant radar reading was ridiculous (58?? come on!) He didn’t show in a trial de novo.
Eighth, although I’ve won about 50% of my cases, most of them by dismissal due to lack of prosecution (as you assumed), I’ve won 2 cases with a verdict of not guilty. THAT IS NOT GUILTY as found by a biased judge (biased in favor of law enforcement that is). Once in a trial by mail/declaration (wow!), and once in person in a court of law (although there were two bogus charges and he found me guilty on one but not the second).
Ninth, even when I was “technically” guilty, none of my violations posed a safety hazard or violation that created any reactionary problems on the part of others. (Example, illegal u-turn, but I didn’t see the sign and no other cars had to slow down because of what I did). I don’t see going a perfectly safe 80 MPH down a relatively empty 4 lane freeway as criminal despite the numbers 65 or 70 being posted as so-called maximums (why not go with 85th % on maximum speeds too?)
Tenth, increasing speed limits will actually lower the death rate and accident rate, not increase it. So as safety improves, so can our driving practices and laws to go with it. The problem isn’t speeding, it is inattentive/negligent driver’s that aren’t paying attention. It is also due to speed variances (me vs. the guy that still thinks its 1980 and 55 MPH rules and has no left lane courtesy).
Eleventh, if left lane yielding was better enforced, traffic flows would be smoother and safer because the fast cars in the fast lanes would not be forced to change lanes and mix it up with slower moving traffic.
As you can see, the number of times you are in court is unrelated to breaking traffic laws, and has more to do with how often you are near incompetent, drunk, and or otherwise incapable officers.
As I’ve stated, I think they know when they write BS tickets, because everytime I’m ready to rape them in court, and run right over them fully prepared, they never show. Then on the cases where I have less of a case, or I’m less prepared, they always show (or I was actually guilty as the law is currently written).
The fact of the matter is I haven’t been at-fault in an accident with another vehicle ever in my life, and that includes over 15 years of driving many miles each year (I’d say average 15K per year). Good driving means not causing accidents, the number of tickets you get is irrelevant to your driving skills. In fact, if you count the number of times I’ve caused an accident and been at fault with ANYONE ANYWHERE vs. the number of times Police Officer’s have caused accidents with my particular vehicle and been at fault, the score is 0 to 1 in my favor.
Andres Dolson I see. You like to only have the laws enforced that you want to have enforced”if left lane yielding was better enforced”. I was right all along. You did go to court even when you did say you were “technically guilty” waisting everyone’s time in your hope that the officer would not show up. There are many others that say that people driving 80 mph in a 65 mph zone should be better enforced. I guess that does not matter to you because you have become the judge that determines which laws are correct and which ones should be broken.
I also say that your 15k miles a year is very little and I have not driven that few of miles in a year for over well over 30 years. Yes I do have more than twice the experience in years and about 4 times as many miles driven than you have with no accidents and I do not get tickets either. You just need to learn how to drive. Why is it that you need to save your few precious seconds on a trip when you drive so few miles in a year?
You need to grow up sometime.
I think James Baxter’s article is right on. It seems very accurate, truthful, and downright realistic to me. I don’t have to do research, I have my own personal experience and research to back up most of what he says in the article.
The only agency or group that is a joke, is the California Highway Patrol (CHP), and the Police Agencies of California cities everywhere. The NMA is far from a joke.
My experience with criminal infraction court proceedings time and time again has proven that for the most part the courts and police are corrupt, liars, perjurers (did you watch the OJ trial where the whole LA Police department conspired and perjured themselves to protect one of their own?), and downright unfair. Some courts pay no attention to the law or legal procedures and simply deny due process to defendents. If you call a lawyer in CA, I believe most can quote you the 3 worst cities/courts to get a ticket in, and that all of them would be consistent to include El Cajon (San Diego’s East County), and this is because they are one of the WORST and most corrupt courthouses. I have a feeling traffic lawyers around the State would be consistent with their worst “3″ lists.
They routinely ignore some laws in order to enforce others that only benefit them. They routinely deny legitimate motions based on rule of law and case precedence. However, some courts are better, such as Kearny Mesa in San Diego, but I’d stop far from praising them, they are just less evil than others.
As someone recently involved in a “speed survey” relevant case. I will say that not only do surveys need to be done AT LEAST every five years (5 years is a long time and 2009 cars are much safer and faster than 2004 cars), but I’d argue they should be done every 3 years, and I’d also argue the limit should be at or ABOVE the 85th percentile, not below to the nearest 5 or 10 MPH as they routinely set them for revenue generation purposes.
Andres Dolson I see. You do not need to do any research to verify this article just like most others that post here. If it is bashing police or the government it is good enough for you. You say NMA is not a joke because if it is again bashing the police or the government then you have the highest respect for NMA even though they indeed make most things up or take them from web sites that do.
You say your. “experience with criminal infraction court proceedings time and time again has proven” . I guess you are an expert at court proceedings since you must break many laws to get there or do you say you were innocent each time? Were you innocent any time that you went to court or are you one of those that show up and hope that you get off because the policeman does not show up?
You say that we need traffic surveys at least every 5 years. Are you willing to pay for it? The government surely can not afford more surveys. You say that newer cars are faster than older cars 5 years ago so we need new surveys. It may be true in some 5 year periods that cars are faster but it does not mean they can stop that much faster. Give me a 40 year old car and I can stop faster than you can any day if you are indeed driving 10 mph faster. You say new cars are safer than old cars so in your thinking we need to increase the speeds to get the death rate up to where it used to be. That kind of thinking is dumb.
To sum it up you say that police are corrupt and courts are corrupt but I say if you need to go to court that often then you are the true corrupt person.
I would like to thank James Baxter for this article. I enjoyed it while it seems some did not.
One of the best things I have done since retiring and stopped devoting so much time to my job is the ability to consider othet points of vew.
I expect that as years go by more people will be drawn to NMA simply because there seems to be no other organization espousing their points of view.
As the years go by and photo enforcement unfortunately becomes more common and the “black Boxes” in our cars are called into court to testify without our approval it seems that NMA is almost the “lone Voice” calling for defense of our driving freedoms that were once unquestioned.
As a member I hope many of you will join me in a rousing “Thank You James”!
Baja Joes I do not have a problem with your beliefs as long as they are built on some kind of facts. If you can find anywhere that backs the statement “will be assessed additional fines up to $2500!” in the article as a fact I will give you a million dollars to help your cause.
Baja Joes please explain item number 1) to me since you agree with it so much. Why again would police have an incentive to give out more tickets when court fees are charged to help offset part of the actual costs to run the court system?
The only reason I can think of that James Baxter would be making things like that up is that if you are a member here your ticket is paid by NMA if you go and fight your ticket. NMA would then be responsible for any extra costs and it would come out of their profit so it pays to make things like that up so that they can try to get more people to complain about it. It is also used as an advertising tool to get more members to increase their income. Where does all that membership money go?
Why does this board put up with the large amount of rantings by a person who always takes the opposite view?
Let him have his say but don’t waste time responding. Even if you present a well reasoned argument he will inevitably take the opposite tack.
I say ignore and shun him!
People hate to be ignored and seem to want controversy. If it’s not forthcoming they don’t have an opponent with which to argue and end up talking to themselves which is unfullfilling.
Baja Joes I am glad that you agree with the article because I sure don’t. Go do your research. Pure garbage. If you believe what this is saying and do not do your research you are a pawn of people that make up things.
If you are a member of this organization you should be pushing for at least some truth in the articles oherwise you are a member of an organization that is a joke.
I also should have said that there is little debate in what is in the article because a little common sense and a little investigation would prove it wrong. Not anything to disagree with in articles such as this if you do a little research. The article was even complaining about when states remove loopholes in the laws so that you can not get away with breaking the laws without any consequences.
James Baxter has no idea what he is talking about.
1) The police would not be given money for any charged court fees. James you are an idiot to be saying the police have incentive to write tickets in that case.
2) where do you get your information where solid evidence is given that there was not a violation and that is overturned. Give us your source for that statement and not “thenewspaper.com” either.
3) where do you get your information that studies were changed from every 5 years to every 10 years because of loss of revenue? The opposite would be true. It costs a lot of money to have studies done on a frequent basis. Traffic does not change that much within a 10 year period. Another biased and made up comment from James Baxter.
4) Show us your source for changes at Marion County, Indiana or is that another of your made up statements.
5) You are right on this one James. Traffic offenses should be a criminal offense rather than a civil one. You could then be thrown in jail for offenses that you intentionally make. Actually George already says that they are criminal offenses.
This is another of James Baxter’s made up articles with made up facts and no references.
Randy, it has been cold outside, did you get frostbite of the brain?
This was a decent article.
Alleged traffic offenses are criminal, so you are supposed to appear in a common law court. By changing to ‘civil’ any semblance of due process is gone. Like kangaroos?
Since the localities don’t want to spend the money to update their traffic study, they had some strings pulled so they can continue to use the older survey. [business 101: Profit=Revenue-Costs] Doing this, which supports an older underposted speed limit, allows for easier revenue collection. One survey every census isn’t enough.
Any ‘court system’ ran by a private company can operate criminally with impunity. Tyranny can not stand forever.
Read slower, James Baxter never said the police will be given direct plunder from the court.
Bribes, no they are ‘campaign contributions’
George if you spend the time to research this article you will find that it is all made up and exagerated. If you believe it as written you are stupid as james is. I looked some of it up. You could find some of the referrences on the internet but they were on the typical sites that make things up and even in those places they could not support what they said and exagerated the information to make headlines. Writing such garbage on this site just promotes this site as worthless.
I also forgot George that in most if not all states simple speeding is a civil offense. It can be a criminal offense in some states if you drive 20 mph over the limit or in others by officer descretion and in most states if it causes injury or death.
I can not figure out with all of your reading why you did not know this already. You may be right though that simple speeding is a criminal offense when you bribe the officer. Maybe that is why you were put in jail.
I also also forgot to mention that I didn’t read the article at all the first time, just skimmed it. Why should I bother reading it when I know it is going to be made of lies? [citation needed]
I was right the first time other Randy. This article is all lies. All 5 points that it made were made up.
Randy,
Why, you sound like an Anti Patriotic Tyrant.
theraw420
;) shhhh