see, my 5AT is quick and with no Ztube or TT or rims!!
I knew i shouldn't have made eye contact with the pig.
Damn it!!! I'm sad now.

Thanks all for the support!

 

Is that what you do?

 

She wants me!

 

you know how we do...

 

awww...man you found out about my secret love for you. dammit. well thats not fun anymore...moving on to the next target...hmm...JK PW!!! hi patrick! lol...see..the reason why you got pulled over is cuz of your damn STARING PROBLEM. see..i knew that staring thing of yours was no good. tsk tsk.

 

damn girl, do your thang.

 

PW you should of told the officier that you're really a woman and you're having your period...that might of worked better than the "runs" LOL.. PATRICA WONG! (sorry I just couldn't resist)

 

In California, I really do not think this will help. We have a simple points system here. 1 point for minor moving violations and 2 for major ones(DUI, reckless driving, driving on a suspended license). So unless your speed warrants a 2 point violation, getting a reduced speed will have no effect on the points. Maybe a bit on the fine, but all said and done, it'll probably cost more to take such a course than what you save.

What Vehicle code are you referring to? I am not familiar with a violation as simple broad as unsafe driving in CA and it would seem to me that it would still be a moving violation. That would still be a point if that's the case.

If you have traffic school, I'd use it. If not, SoCalTed is leading down the right path. You have to consider the strength of your case. The basic speed law is the premise for all other speed laws. The typical speed law that you are cited for is a prima facie case. Basically, they are say you are breaking the basic speed law when you break the speed limit. VC 22351 is the key code here. It's somehwat of an ambiguous code that states a person is not in violation of a speed law if you are within the prima facie limits unless it is proven you were in violation of a speed law(Generally hard to prove unless you actually get into an accident). The second part of it states that your speed is unlawful if your speed is more than the prima facie limits unless it is proven that you are not violating the basic speed law. This is the law that give you an out. But, the stipulation is that you have to be able to prove to a judge that you were driving a safe speed for the conditions. Many officers have gotten pretty good at presenting these cases. Many will bring with them a copy of the radar/laser calibration and service records. Many will bring the road speed surveys. I tend to try and NOT contest the radar/lasar. If the records are in order and you build your case around it, then you will have a very weak argument if you move on to something else later if your arguments don't hold water. Trying to get a judge to believe you over an officer can be difficult. Consider that a person trying to get out of a charge anyway he can will try to make several different arguments, even to the point some of them may be contradictory. A person who truly believes he is not guilty will usually do so because of a specific reason and will make that the focus of his argument. So if you argue the lasar/radar integrity, and the judge doesn't buy it, you've lost. Short of something you can actually prove, I'd stay away from that argument. Arguing the basic speed law in most cases has the best chance since it is most open to interpretation. It also is most ideal to get corrobaration of facts from the officer. The conditions present for fast driving are consequently also the ideal conditions for getting a good radar/lasar reading. Clear sunny weather, dry roads, good visibility, low traffic(line of sight and less chance of erroneous reading). And seeing as how many people go in and try to fight the integrity of lasar/radar, it's easy to get an officer to confirm these types of facts, especially if you make him believe you might be fighting your cars based on the integrity of the lasar/radar. Simply asking first if his lasar/radar was calibrated correctly and when the last time it was serviced is probably enough to do that without building a case around it. If you can confirm enough facts that could indicate that it was safe to drive the speed you were going, then you might be found not guilty. Keep in mind everything from how many driveways, and roads tehre ere bearby, visibility of potential cross traffic, how the 2 sides of the street are divided can all be factors. If you can get a copy of the road survey, you might look for things that might help your case here. They tend to pick the 85th percentile of top speed during non-peak hours. But consider it's an average within a timeframe as opposed to each individual moment. 6 cars that are travelling down the same road in a small pack may drive slower than 6 cars that are alone within an hour's time. This may not be an easy argument, but depending on how detailed and specific the report and if there are enough inconsistencies(especially when relating to your case), then you might be able to question it's credibility. Another potential point of argument is how the tests are performed. If they are using one of those mobile radar devices that post the speed of the cars really big as you drive-by, an argument can be made that people will slow-down when they see that. Since the report is designed to determine what a reasonably safe maximum speed is, the environment can't have a visual device that might cause a reaction from a driver. on this same note, speed limits themselves can skew the results. Many drive the speed limit or only a certain speed over a speed limit for fear of getting a ticket. As a result, this can cause the road survey numbers to be lower than what even a reasonable, prudent, safe driver would drive if there were no limits. And unless the report actually helps you, I would not bring it up unless the officer does. Then just try to discredit the evidence so the decision needs to be made solely on the merits of your case. I'd probably even mention that officers rarely ticket for the basic speed law, unless they have a prima facie case. They only cite the basic speed law otherwise when an accident occurs. Essentally, how can any speed be unsafe for conditions if an accident did not occur? And consider that you technically only need to present a case of reasonable doubt. The judge's opinion on reasonable doubt can vary. I went to traffic court where a criminal judge had to hear the cases in the traffic judge's absence. He seemed to have a much more liberal view on reasonable doubt than any other traffic judge I've been in front of. The defendant made a rather stupid argument, but the judge gave him the benefit of the doubt. IT was a shame too. I was fighting a speeding case of mine that was probably the most ideal foor a basic speed law argument. Between that and a liberal judge, i could ask for nothing better. The cop didn't show. Which was great, but of all the times I've fought tickets, this is the one they decide not to show for. GRRR.

 

ckwik.....wow...thanks for the info.