Man Given Speeding Ticket from Civilian Complaint

a reply to: MacK80

I'm not switching insurance over it. Who's to say they don't all do it? OnStar can track so many things about your vehicle, and sell that info to whoever they want. Insurance companies love to see if you're being naughty so they can charge you more money.

The story behind this: My insurance premiums had been steady for years, no indication of any rate hikes. Yet, one night my cousin wants to see what my car will do. He hops in the drivers seat, I hop in the passenger seat, he doesn't put on a seatbelt and sees how fast it will go.

The next 6 month premium I got was $200 higher. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I don't trust that big-brother OnStar that's intertwined with all the electronics of my car.

originally posted by: Aldakoopa
a reply to: MacK80

I'm not switching insurance over it. Who's to say they don't all do it? OnStar can track so many things about your vehicle, and sell that info to whoever they want. Insurance companies love to see if you're being naughty so they can charge you more money.

The story behind this: My insurance premiums had been steady for years, no indication of any rate hikes. Yet, one night my cousin wants to see what my car will do. He hops in the drivers seat, I hop in the passenger seat, he doesn't put on a seatbelt and sees how fast it will go.

The next 6 month premium I got was $200 higher. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I don't trust that big-brother OnStar that's intertwined with all the electronics of my car.

You broke the law (and appears from your previous post you still havent learned a lesson) so expect to pay for it. Keep dishing out your money to the local city or state . Bet they love ya for it. You probably single-handedly pay for some of their road projects..

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Aldakoopa
a reply to: MacK80

I'm not switching insurance over it. Who's to say they don't all do it? OnStar can track so many things about your vehicle, and sell that info to whoever they want. Insurance companies love to see if you're being naughty so they can charge you more money.

The story behind this: My insurance premiums had been steady for years, no indication of any rate hikes. Yet, one night my cousin wants to see what my car will do. He hops in the drivers seat, I hop in the passenger seat, he doesn't put on a seatbelt and sees how fast it will go.

The next 6 month premium I got was $200 higher. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I don't trust that big-brother OnStar that's intertwined with all the electronics of my car.

You broke the law (and appears from your previous post you still havent learned a lesson) so expect to pay for it. Keep dishing out your money to the local city or state . Bet they love ya for it. You probably single-handedly pay for some of their road projects..

I've never had a ticket.

I used to live in Michigan, there it is law that the Officer that sees the infraction must write the ticket, I was pulled over after passing a police car parked next to railroad tracks, the Officer wrote me a ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign, I asked the office if he saw the infraction and he replied no he did not, I took arbitration instead of court, Took photos of the 6 foot hedge that was between the stop sign and where the Officer was parked, and at 10 foot intervals in both directions.

Come to find out that the officers (Ottawa county) were using a "selective enforcement zone" the was posted on a north-south Hiway 3 miles away, I was traveling east-west, the county ending paying back some 35 grand in bad tickets, I moved shortly after that to Texas.

So yes, it is good to fight it (was the only moving violation I ever got).

The real issue is that someone can accuse you of a crime, when they presumably have zero evidence, and have law enforcement mete out punitive measures for it.

What's to stop you're arch nemesis (if you got one) from just slamming you with whatever malicious evil deeds they can think up? Nothing apparently. That's wrong.

a reply to: Aldakoopa
Thats a super easy ticket to get out of without even needing a lawyer. You take it to trial, which is literally like ten minute exchange during a regular day in traffic court. Communicate from the state you need to summon the witness who claimed you were speeding, and the officer who issued the ticket. Just present your case and ask them "what evidence, physical evidence do you have to prove my speed was above the posted limit??" And just go from there. Even if you were speeding, if you were not when the officer pulled you over he is going by circumstantial evidence. The only chance the officer has is dash cam or nearby business surveillance cams. I doubt the officer will even show up to court once he goes back to the ticket he is being summoned for and realizes he screwed up. Even if he does though, burden of proof is on him for the claim you were speeding.

Tickets or cases which are dismissed do not require you to pay court costs. This is super easy, and we got billboards all over town getting red light camera tickets and speeding tickets thrown out all the time by very low cost representation. This is like the definition of a super duper easy ticket to get thrown out.

Just like the traffic light cameras, shouldn't they have to prove who was driving?

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: AldakoopaTickets or cases which are dismissed do not require you to pay court costs.

I made the complaint earlier that you still had to pay court fees if your case was dismissed. Perhaps I'm confusing this with just paying off the ticket, which you pay the court costs even though you never had your day in court. I don't really know, because as I said in my last post I've never once been given a ticket so I've never had to deal with it.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

I don't get the problem you have with this. If a person hits your car and drives away and there's no cop there, shouldn't you be able to prosecute? If some butthead is continuing to race up and down your street, shouldn't you be able to do something?

In Massachusetts, if he was to fight this ticket, the woman would have to show up to court or the ticket would be dismissed. It sucks having to go to court, but that's how civilized societies work. Litigation sucks, but its better than frontier justice.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

I have been to court a lot in my twenties unfortunately. Several times I have had cases for both traffic and other cases dismissed and thrown out. In those instances, Judge states in his ruling "all associated court costs are waived" or something or other. Bam, grab my paper and go home, have nice day.

If you contest a ticket in court and lose, yes you pay court costs. Paying the ticket straight up does not incur court fees, because you don't go to court.

Florida is funny though, and I has to go to jail for 15 days for violating probation by driving without license (suspended license). I obviously had to pay fees. When I first started driving around '02-'03 , if you simply forgot to bring your license with you, or insurance and you get ticketed for it, you could show up with the license/ins. , get the charge dropped and court costs waived. However, sometime before 2010 they amended the law and added a new charge. Now the same situation you simply get charge lowered to failure to present valid license or something like that. So you still have to pay a ticket, AND the court costs. Guess they figured it was a waste of revenue and resources to just allow you off Scott free for forgetting your small piece of plastic/paper. BASTARDS!

I been pretty good the last couple of years. I caught a ticket in Texas once for doing 90 in an 85. I debated whether to just ignore it since I was only passing through. But then I would have a bench warrant from Texas for failure to appear, and would rather not deal with the potential trouble that could bring since I do enjoy an annual trek which passes across that vast land. Texas is awesome!

originally posted by: ZeussusZ
a reply to: intrptr

Somebody thought they saw you speeding the other day. They may tell a cop. Expect a ticket. See how that doesn't work.

Lol, cops don't write tickets on 'hear say' , I bet you never tried to contest a traffic ticket before. I sat thru a whole docket of those once, ever_single_one_pronounced_guilty.

originally posted by: Aldakoopa
a reply to: MacK80

I'm not switching insurance over it. Who's to say they don't all do it? OnStar can track so many things about your vehicle, and sell that info to whoever they want. Insurance companies love to see if you're being naughty so they can charge you more money.

The story behind this: My insurance premiums had been steady for years, no indication of any rate hikes. Yet, one night my cousin wants to see what my car will do. He hops in the drivers seat, I hop in the passenger seat, he doesn't put on a seatbelt and sees how fast it will go.

The next 6 month premium I got was $200 higher. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I don't trust that big-brother OnStar that's intertwined with all the electronics of my car.

Excuse me, I had a question about OnStar.

Are you paying for active onstar services, or are you implying it will record all those things even when you aren't paying for the service? I'm curious because my 2013 Chevy Spark has onstar, but I never paid for a subscription.

If recording "offline" is the case, then could they get an order to receive information from that device or system, provided he has it in his car?

-Alee

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Aldakoopa

I don't get the problem you have with this. If a person hits your car and drives away and there's no cop there, shouldn't you be able to prosecute? If some butthead is continuing to race up and down your street, shouldn't you be able to do something?

If someone hits your car, you have physical evidence. There will be damage to both vehicles. If someone is repeatedly speeding on a road, you can report it to police. They should then watch that road more closely or put up other preventative measures to catch or deter the speeders.

My problem is the accuser could have an issue with the alleged speeder that made them call and even exaggerate the offense. They could have reported it as a silver truck, and the cop happens to be in the area and pulls the first silver truck off the bridge. What if there was more than one silver truck on the bridge that day? Who he pulled and ticketed may not be the right one because HE didn't see the traffic violation being commited to know if that was the right vehicle.

originally posted by: NerdGoddess

originally posted by: Aldakoopa
a reply to: MacK80

I'm not switching insurance over it. Who's to say they don't all do it? OnStar can track so many things about your vehicle, and sell that info to whoever they want. Insurance companies love to see if you're being naughty so they can charge you more money.

The story behind this: My insurance premiums had been steady for years, no indication of any rate hikes. Yet, one night my cousin wants to see what my car will do. He hops in the drivers seat, I hop in the passenger seat, he doesn't put on a seatbelt and sees how fast it will go.

The next 6 month premium I got was $200 higher. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I don't trust that big-brother OnStar that's intertwined with all the electronics of my car.

Excuse me, I had a question about OnStar.

Are you paying for active onstar services, or are you implying it will record all those things even when you aren't paying for the service? I'm curious because my 2013 Chevy Spark has onstar, but I never paid for a subscription.

If recording "offline" is the case, then could they get an order to receive information from that device or system, provided he has it in his car?

-Alee

I do not pay for OnStar services. I had a year free trial with my Sonic but never renewed it. I know that the system can still communicate the same information to OnStar without it being active. Whether it does or not is up for debate.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

Presuming the only description is a silver truck, I'd agree. I don't think that is likely to have occurred. I'd bet the license plate number was given.

People go to jail all of the time with no physical evidence. One person's word is enough to convict someone of a crime. A speeding ticket is not a criminal violation, it's a civil infraction. The standard of proof is less, beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence. One person's word is plenty for preponderance of the evidence standard. Why is a police officer's word more important than anyone else's?

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Aldakoopa

Presuming the only description is a silver truck, I'd agree. I don't think that is likely to have occurred. I'd bet the license plate number was given.

People go to jail all of the time with no physical evidence. One person's word is enough to convict someone of a crime. A speeding ticket is not a criminal violation, it's a civil infraction. The standard of proof is less, beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence. One person's word is plenty for preponderance of the evidence standard. Why is a police officer's word more important than anyone else's?

If he was going as fast as she alleged he was, he must have either had a short plate number or she was a fast reader then... unless she did a little speeding herself to confirm the number. And I'm not saying the police officers word is more important, but rather they have the equipment to verify his speed as proof of his infraction. I also never called it a criminal violation.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

I know I'm repeating myself, but if the only info the police officer had was that a silver truck was speeding in a particular area an half hour ago, that officer would be violating the rights of the driver by pulling that truck over.

I know you didn't say it was a crime, though others in the thread have. My point in stating that was relative to the necessary proof of the infraction, whether it be criminal or civil.

Police officers do not need to use radar or lidar, or even clocking, to estimate the speed in order to write a ticket. They should, obviously. But they don't have to do so. At least not in Massachusetts.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Aldakoopa

He needs a good lawyer and should sue for stupidity after he wins.

They cannot justify giving him a ticket based on that woman's testimony.

Oh but if you listen to the cop when questioned, and told she is not a trained officer, he says Yes they are.

So why didn't she present herself I wonder.

Sounds like a scam to me, and should be fought in court. There is no way without evidence of him speeding, he would lose.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
Person gets caught speeding. Gets a ticket. Tries to get out of it while whining to others he was wrongly ticketed.

Sounds normal. Pay the ticket IMO. 85, 90 or a 100, who cares. Speeding is speeding. Do the crime, man up and pay the fine.

Was he speeding? Where is the proof?

If this is acceptable, my god.. I'm sure that barney over the road is beating his wife, I better call the cops on him and have him taken to jail.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

I'd be disputing it, demanding she pay court costs, and filing a false claim lawsuit against her!! the cops should not even be able to issue a ticket on the word of a citizen, either. A warning, at BEST, is all they can do.