I got my 2nd speeding ticket. What should I do?

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:29:13 -0700, Olaf Gustafson >
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 06:47:27 GMT, Christopher Green >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>You will need a defense, one that casts doubt on the speed you were
>>radared or paced at. It may be difficult, because the OC toll roads
>>are paradise for law enforcement: light traffic, perfect sight lines,
>>an abundance of victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrivers who blow off the speed
>>limit.
>
>There is no strikeout "character" in ASCII. This is a newsgroup, not
>a web page.

To history-impaired readers, know that this is an old convention
indicating that I meant "victims" but wrote "drivers".

--
Chris Green

C.H. wrote:

> It's kinda funny how that truckinwannabe troll can excite a whole bunch of
> people. That he is not interested in a reasonable discussion is evident
> enough, so why do you guys let yourselves be trolled like that?

I don't believe he is an outright troll like Judy is. I just believe
he's obtuse.

truck: "We can't have higher speed limits because they result in more
crashes and less deaths."

me: "If people were driving faster, then why were there less deaths?"

truck: "People weren't driving faster."

me: "If people weren't driving faster, then why were there more crashes?"

truck: <changes subject>

See what I mean? He doesn't want to admit that he effectively shot his
own argument in the foot by saying that average American drivers are
able to choose safe speeds independent of whether a posted limit exists
or not.

Besides, if everyone agreed with each other here, then were would the
discussion be

C.H. wrote:

> It's kinda funny how that truckinwannabe troll can excite a whole bunch of
> people. That he is not interested in a reasonable discussion is evident
> enough, so why do you guys let yourselves be trolled like that?

I don't believe he is an outright troll like Judy is. I just believe
he's obtuse.

truck: "We can't have higher speed limits because they result in more
crashes and less deaths."

me: "If people were driving faster, then why were there less deaths?"

truck: "People weren't driving faster."

me: "If people weren't driving faster, then why were there more crashes?"

truck: <changes subject>

See what I mean? He doesn't want to admit that he effectively shot his
own argument in the foot by saying that average American drivers are
able to choose safe speeds independent of whether a posted limit exists
or not.

Besides, if everyone agreed with each other here, then were would the
discussion be

"truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com> wrote in message nk.net>...
> >Well, I couldn't find anything in your cite to support your claim about
> >the highway patrol ticketing over 85 MPH, but it does have a few
> >interesting things to say about Montana's period of "reasonable and
> >prudent" Interstates.
>
> >I think the summary at the beginning says most of what needs to be said:
> >* Average measured speeds on urban Interstate highways remained constant
> >between 55-60 mph.
> >[Not surprising]
>
> >* Average measured speeds on rural Interstate highways have been
> >increasing and are currently 67 mph.
> >[Not surprising]
>
> >*Annual vehicle miles traveled increased steadily. Number of accidents
> >and fatalities per million vehicle miles decreased.
> >[Bingo! Despite no posted speed limit, slightly higher travel speeds,
> >and VMT "increas[ing] steadily", the collision and fatality rates were
> >on their way down, meaning the roads were safer for everyone]
>
> >* The first seven months of 1997 had increases in both the number of
> >fatal accidents and fatalities compared to 1996.
> >[And yet the rates kept going down. This is _exactly_ why raw numbers
> >aren't as good as the statistical rates]
>
> >*Majority of fatal accidents and total accidents are occurring on
> >non-Interstate highways.
> >['Nuff said]
>
>
> Sounds like you TOTALLY missed the point. The point is that everyone points
> to Montana's experiment as a reason to increase speed limits. Even with NO
> speed limits, Montanans drive slower so the median never reached the high
> speeds you guys claim you drive.....and there are VERY good reasons for
> that. If you've ever been to Montana, you know they have snowy weather 8
> months of the year, there are no long wide open roads in MT because of the
> mountains, those road that are fairly straight have high winds, etc......so
> Montana experiment ISN'T a good excuse for higher speed limits......
>
> Montana traditionally has more deaths on non-interstate roads.....you need
> to look at a map....most of the small towns aren't connected by interstates
> and MT's are used to driving long distances on two lane roads....hell half
> the two lane roads in MT aren't even paved.....Montana also has 7
> reservations and on the res's the natives do not have to follow traffic regs
> so deaths are also higher on the res's....if you REALLY want to see what
> it's like to live without traffic regs, move there.......
>
> I'm from MT and my family still lives there......they are the ones that told
> me they were bombarded with the messages from MHP about anything over 85 mph
> not being considered reasonable and prudent.......

Somehow I doubt your knowledge of MT and its "experiment". AFAIK
there was no "experiment". They had 'resonable and..." long before
the 55 limit was institued. My first pass through MT was 1956 and it
was that way then, remained so until the 55. During the 55 until they
were forced to change it was still basically 'r&p' except you could
pay a $5 (IIRC) ticket on the side of the road if you did get stopped
for speeding under the 55. A for 'no long wide open roads..." What,
never been in the eastern half??

Harry K

"truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com> wrote in message nk.net>...
> >Well, I couldn't find anything in your cite to support your claim about
> >the highway patrol ticketing over 85 MPH, but it does have a few
> >interesting things to say about Montana's period of "reasonable and
> >prudent" Interstates.
>
> >I think the summary at the beginning says most of what needs to be said:
> >* Average measured speeds on urban Interstate highways remained constant
> >between 55-60 mph.
> >[Not surprising]
>
> >* Average measured speeds on rural Interstate highways have been
> >increasing and are currently 67 mph.
> >[Not surprising]
>
> >*Annual vehicle miles traveled increased steadily. Number of accidents
> >and fatalities per million vehicle miles decreased.
> >[Bingo! Despite no posted speed limit, slightly higher travel speeds,
> >and VMT "increas[ing] steadily", the collision and fatality rates were
> >on their way down, meaning the roads were safer for everyone]
>
> >* The first seven months of 1997 had increases in both the number of
> >fatal accidents and fatalities compared to 1996.
> >[And yet the rates kept going down. This is _exactly_ why raw numbers
> >aren't as good as the statistical rates]
>
> >*Majority of fatal accidents and total accidents are occurring on
> >non-Interstate highways.
> >['Nuff said]
>
>
> Sounds like you TOTALLY missed the point. The point is that everyone points
> to Montana's experiment as a reason to increase speed limits. Even with NO
> speed limits, Montanans drive slower so the median never reached the high
> speeds you guys claim you drive.....and there are VERY good reasons for
> that. If you've ever been to Montana, you know they have snowy weather 8
> months of the year, there are no long wide open roads in MT because of the
> mountains, those road that are fairly straight have high winds, etc......so
> Montana experiment ISN'T a good excuse for higher speed limits......
>
> Montana traditionally has more deaths on non-interstate roads.....you need
> to look at a map....most of the small towns aren't connected by interstates
> and MT's are used to driving long distances on two lane roads....hell half
> the two lane roads in MT aren't even paved.....Montana also has 7
> reservations and on the res's the natives do not have to follow traffic regs
> so deaths are also higher on the res's....if you REALLY want to see what
> it's like to live without traffic regs, move there.......
>
> I'm from MT and my family still lives there......they are the ones that told
> me they were bombarded with the messages from MHP about anything over 85 mph
> not being considered reasonable and prudent.......

Somehow I doubt your knowledge of MT and its "experiment". AFAIK
there was no "experiment". They had 'resonable and..." long before
the 55 limit was institued. My first pass through MT was 1956 and it
was that way then, remained so until the 55. During the 55 until they
were forced to change it was still basically 'r&p' except you could
pay a $5 (IIRC) ticket on the side of the road if you did get stopped
for speeding under the 55. A for 'no long wide open roads..." What,
never been in the eastern half??

Harry K

>Somehow I doubt your knowledge of MT and its "experiment". AFAIK
>there was no "experiment". They had 'resonable and..." long before
>the 55 limit was institued. My first pass through MT was 1956 and it
>was that way then, remained so until the 55. During the 55 until they
>were forced to change it was still basically 'r&p' except you could
>for speeding under the 55. A for 'no long wide open roads..." What,
>never been in the eastern half??

>Harry K

Yea, I have....have you ever gone from Billings to Hardin in a snow storm???
or better yet, come back the other way??? I have... tell me about Pryor
hill....

You ever go from Billings to Miles City when the snow is coming at you
sideways? I have.

You ever driven from Poplar to Livingston? I have....

You ever driven from Bozeman to Big Timber in 70 mph winds?? I have....

You ever driven from Great Falls to Wolf Point? I have....

Don't try to tell me about MT....I grew up there......

Just because you may have crossed MT on a few nice hot summer days doesn't
tell you a THING about that state.....

And YES, it WAS an experiment.....the "reasonable and prudent" of the 50's
had NOTHING to do with the road conditions that exist in MT today or the
amount of people crossing the state today.....

>Somehow I doubt your knowledge of MT and its "experiment". AFAIK
>there was no "experiment". They had 'resonable and..." long before
>the 55 limit was institued. My first pass through MT was 1956 and it
>was that way then, remained so until the 55. During the 55 until they
>were forced to change it was still basically 'r&p' except you could
>for speeding under the 55. A for 'no long wide open roads..." What,
>never been in the eastern half??

>Harry K

Yea, I have....have you ever gone from Billings to Hardin in a snow storm???
or better yet, come back the other way??? I have... tell me about Pryor
hill....

You ever go from Billings to Miles City when the snow is coming at you
sideways? I have.

You ever driven from Poplar to Livingston? I have....

You ever driven from Bozeman to Big Timber in 70 mph winds?? I have....

You ever driven from Great Falls to Wolf Point? I have....

Don't try to tell me about MT....I grew up there......

Just because you may have crossed MT on a few nice hot summer days doesn't
tell you a THING about that state.....

And YES, it WAS an experiment.....the "reasonable and prudent" of the 50's
had NOTHING to do with the road conditions that exist in MT today or the
amount of people crossing the state today.....

truck: "We can't have higher speed limits because they result in more
crashes and less deaths."

me: "If people were driving faster, then why were there less deaths?"

truck: "People weren't driving faster."

me: "If people weren't driving faster, then why were there more crashes?"

>truck: <changes subject>

>See what I mean? He doesn't want to admit that he effectively shot his
>own argument in the foot by saying that average American drivers are
>able to choose safe speeds independent of whether a posted limit exists
>or not.

>Besides, if everyone agreed with each other here, then were would the
>discussion be

My story has always been the same....speed kills.....the lack of a speed
limit in MT is proof of NOTHING and should not be used to support increased
speed limits.....MT drivers have always been more responsible than drivers
in more populated states and when given the chance to speed they didn't do
it......now tell me that THAT would happen in California or Ohio or anywhere
else

truck: "We can't have higher speed limits because they result in more
crashes and less deaths."

me: "If people were driving faster, then why were there less deaths?"

truck: "People weren't driving faster."

me: "If people weren't driving faster, then why were there more crashes?"

>truck: <changes subject>

>See what I mean? He doesn't want to admit that he effectively shot his
>own argument in the foot by saying that average American drivers are
>able to choose safe speeds independent of whether a posted limit exists
>or not.

>Besides, if everyone agreed with each other here, then were would the
>discussion be

My story has always been the same....speed kills.....the lack of a speed
limit in MT is proof of NOTHING and should not be used to support increased
speed limits.....MT drivers have always been more responsible than drivers
in more populated states and when given the chance to speed they didn't do
it......now tell me that THAT would happen in California or Ohio or anywhere
else

truckinsp wrote:

> MT drivers have always been more responsible than drivers
> in more populated states

You have to resort to your own imagination to support your arguments?
Try again.