Got my first speeding ticket. Should I fight it?

[TracyThom]

Wow, bitter much?

 

Haha, yep. That's just my style. I know for certain that I was not going any faster than 20 mph over. She couldn't have issued me a ticket for 19 mph over so that I could have fallen in the far less severe 11-19 mph range? .

You know you can ask to see the radar gun reading, right? They have to indicate how they calculated your speed, and 90% of the time it is with a radar or laser. If they do it with some type of counting/distance method you can almost always fight that, especially if there is traffic around you. So the point is that if the ticket said you were going more than 20 over, you were.

 

 

You can ask, but the officer has absolutely no requirement to show you the radar or laser. Most officers do not show you the reading due to officer safety factors. I wouldn't want a citizen sticking their head in my squad car where a rifle or shotgun is kept. Many, many, many times the officer does not even lock in the radar reading. It is not required. Many older radar units stop tracking the speed once the speed is locked in. Why lock in a speed at 70 if you can tell that the vehicle is still accelerating? The officer is required to estimate the suspect vehicle's speed, activate the laser/radar, and then track the speed for 3 seconds. There is no requirement to lock in the speed.

 

Back to what nodakfan17 was saying. I agree that the original poster should take responsibility and pay up. It sounds like he is taking full responsibility for his mistake. However, if you know how to play the game, more power to you. In my opinion, it's like trying to get the best price on a used car.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

It really is a game... the prices of fines are basically arbitrarily set, and it's pretty arbitrary how the DA will almost automatically lower the fine if you bother to show up in court.

[logan82]

In this case I think he already got a break by not hiving his fine doubled. Not sure if that would come up if he tried to fight it. His main concern seems to be his insurance premium going up and in that case I would think unless the ticket is dropped completely, it will not make a difference.

[TracyThom]

Haha, yep. That's just my style. I know for certain that I was not going any faster than 20 mph over. She couldn't have issued me a ticket for 19 mph over so that I could have fallen in the far less severe 11-19 mph range? After all, it was my first (and only) offense.

 

The reason many officers do not reduce the speed on the citation is because they are told by the municipal judges and local attornies not to do so. For instance, say that an officer stops a vehicle for 20 over and he writes the citation for 16 over. The same subject can then go to court and try to get it reduced even farther. Unless the officer specifically lists on the citation, his report, or in the narrative section on the back of the ticket, the judge or attorney has no idea what speed the subject was originally stopped for.

[thebruce44]

Wow, bitter much?

 

Haha, yep. That's just my style. I know for certain that I was not going any faster than 20 mph over. She couldn't have issued me a ticket for 19 mph over so that I could have fallen in the far less severe 11-19 mph range? .

You know you can ask to see the radar gun reading, right? They have to indicate how they calculated your speed, and 90% of the time it is with a radar or laser. If they do it with some type of counting/distance method you can almost always fight that, especially if there is traffic around you. So the point is that if the ticket said you were going more than 20 over, you were.

 

 

You can ask, but the officer has absolutely no requirement to show you the radar or laser. Most officers do not show you the reading due to officer safety factors. I wouldn't want a citizen sticking their head in my squad car where a rifle or shotgun is kept. Many, many, many times the officer does not even lock in the radar reading. It is not required. Many older radar units stop tracking the speed once the speed is locked in. Why lock in a speed at 70 if you can tell that the vehicle is still accelerating? The officer is required to estimate the suspect vehicle's speed, activate the laser/radar, and then track the speed for 3 seconds. There is no requirement to lock in the speed.

 

Back to what nodakfan17 was saying. I agree that the original poster should take responsibility and pay up. It sounds like he is taking full responsibility for his mistake. However, if you know how to play the game, more power to you. In my opinion, it's like trying to get the best price on a used car.

Not saying you are wrong, but that goes directly against what I was told by the officer who gave me my first speeding ticket about 8 years ago. Perhaps it has changed or different areas have different rules.

[sheethead]

Well, let me tell you how Milwaukee County now works. You go to your date, they give you a sheet of paper with all the possible tickets issued to the lot of people there, and next to each violation is an option or two (pleas). I was there to contest a 64 mph in a 50 zone violation. Keep in mind, I am a very good driver, and would put my skills up against anyone who constantly feels the need to travel at or under the posted speed limit. I am just about ready to shop my policy, so I don't need a moving violation on my record. My record is clean, so the judge gave me the option to choose either plea option and enter no contest to the violation.

 

Original violation: 10-19 over posted speed limit; $189 fine, 4 points.

Option 1: same fine, Faulty speedometer, 2 points (still a moving violation)

Option 2: $270 fine, Illegal parking, 0 points

 

Needless to say I upgraded my ticket to the parking violation. How is this not extortion?

[TracyThom]

Well, let me tell you how Milwaukee County now works. You go to your date, they give you a sheet of paper with all the possible tickets issued to the lot of people there, and next to each violation is an option or two (pleas). I was there to contest a 64 mph in a 50 zone violation. Keep in mind, I am a very good driver, and would put my skills up against anyone who constantly feels the need to travel at or under the posted speed limit. I am just about ready to shop my policy, so I don't need a moving violation on my record. My record is clean, so the judge gave me the option to choose either plea option and enter no contest to the violation.

 

Original violation: 10-19 over posted speed limit; $189 fine, 4 points.

Option 1: same fine, Faulty speedometer, 2 points (still a moving violation)

Option 2: $270 fine, Illegal parking, 0 points

 

Needless to say I upgraded my ticket to the parking violation. How is this not extortion?

It's not extortion because nobody is forcing you to pay the higher fine in exchange for the zero point violation. Nobody is forcing you to plead no contest. You have choices. That's why it's not extortion.

 

To TheBruce, the officer who stopped you 8 years ago was mistaken or perhaps you misunderstood him. The officer does not have to show you the radar. I can promise that it has been like that for at least 11 years.

[logan82]

A parking ticket for speeding? That is completely ridiculous.

[sheethead]

It's not extortion because nobody is forcing you to pay the higher fine in exchange for the zero point violation. Nobody is forcing you to plead no contest. You have choices. That's why it's not extortion.

 

With any type of extortion, there is always a choice. In this case, having negative data on my driving extract is the consequence of not paying the government the extra cheese. Not quite knee-breaking, but there is a similarity.

[And That]

In this case, having negative data on my driving extract is the consequence of not paying the government the extra cheese.

Actually, having negative data on your driving record would be the consequence of breaking the law.

[brewers19]

Keep in mind, I am a very good driver, and would put my skills up against anyone who constantly feels the need to travel at or under the posted speed limit.

Well then, that makes it all okay. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that our plebeian traffic laws have caused you. Please feel free to continue ignoring them.

[jerichoholicninja]

In this case I think he already got a break by not hiving his fine doubled. Not sure if that would come up if he tried to fight it. His main concern seems to be his insurance premium going up and in that case I would think unless the ticket is dropped completely, it will not make a difference.

Basically I only care about the insurance part. I know I screwed up. I told the officer that. He was nice enough to not double my fine so I'm thinking that showing up will not help me. Could they actually go ahead and still double it?

[1992casey]

Telling the officer you screwed up won't help you if you go to trial. But I can't see how it could hurt to plead not guilty via mail. Or show up, plead not guilty, and see how others are being handled.

[sheethead]

Actually, having negative data on your driving record would be the consequence of breaking the law.

 

Yeah, if only I was a 21 year-old female with a cute face, I wouldn't have to deal with any of this.

 

I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that our plebeian traffic

laws have caused you.

 

Why, are you the copper that was set up 150 feet past the speed limit change on the freeway on quota day? If not then I don't see why you need to apologize.

[thebruce44]

I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that our plebeian traffic laws have caused you.

 

Why, are you the copper that was set up 150 feet past the speed limit change on the freeway on quota day? If not then I don't see why you need to apologize.

Seriously. What a lame comment. Most hwy speed limits serve only to make money and not provide for optimum safety, especially in the state of WI.

[sheethead]

Most hwy speed limits serve only to make money and not provide for optimum safety, especially in the state of WI.

 

Its funny how Americans, similar to us here in Wisconsin, have concluded that speed limits of 70 and 75 mph are appropriate in other, neighboring states. I would agree WI traffic "laws" are more plebeian than other states laws. What really matters, is that there are terrible drivers, many of which drive unlicensed and uninsured. Transponders indicating driver licensing and vehicle registration should be a priority. Then the coppers will know who to pull over on quota day. Not some excellent driver who happened to miss a reduction in a freeway speed limit in time to avoid a $265 extortion fee.

 

But yeah, I am really glad the state of WI had deemed us unfit to drive as fast as citizens in other states. We must really be that different and more lame than those people.

[TooLiveBrew]

I wish we could adopt a nationwide speed limit of 75 on interstate highways, and actually enforce the letter of the law. That would get my vote.

[sheethead]

TLB, that is the ideal top speed limit for most interstates. I-80 in Nebraska can be 90 mph.

[TooLiveBrew]

Iirc Montana is 85 or 90 as well. Which is good, because, well... it's Montana, and it takes forever to cross

[sheethead]

Just added the Trapster speed trap alert app to my iPhone. Looks like a handy resource tool.

[1992casey]

Montana is 75. There was a time when it had no limit. With a few 80 MPH exceptions in Texas and Utah, 75 is the maximum interstate speed limit in the US.

 

Maximum speed limits by

state (table)

 

Maximum speed limits by state (map)

 

The map shows that speed limits within particular regions of the country are very similar. It notes maximum speed limits, but it doesn't necessarily note typical speed limits. For instance, in Texas and Utah, the speed limit on rural interstates is 75 with the exception of specific sections that are 80. Texas is 65 at night, though. Kentucky and Virginia have similar tiers: 65 unless an engineering study deems 70 to be safe.

 

The table offers all the explanations.

[brewers19]

I honestly don't get where people are getting the sense of entitlement that says they should be their own judges of how fast they're allowed to drive. State governments provide drivers liscenses with the stipulation that traffic laws are obeyed. If for some reason they decide that the speed limit on the highway should be 35, then that's the way things are. It's all pretty cut and dry. Driving is not a right.

[BREWCREW5]

funny that teatote has been pulled over 10 less times than he was 2 years ago. see the other thread on this issue.

[Teatoe993]

I've seriously lost count after a while. I've been fairly clean the past 5 years, averaging 1 or 2 pull-overs a year since then but no tickets! My attorney is relieved.

[sheethead]

If for some reason they decide that the speed limit on the highway should be 35, then that's the way things are.

 

And if the government instructed us to line up for mandatory roshambo on the first Monday of the month, I'm sure we would all fall in line.