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

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.

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

Obviously you've never been to MT.....

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

Obviously you've never been to MT.....

truckinsp wrote:

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

> Obviously you've never been to MT.....

I live in a state that has a low population density as well. I don't
see any difference between the relative responsibility of drivers here
as compared to places like near Washington DC.

truckinsp wrote:

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

> Obviously you've never been to MT.....

I live in a state that has a low population density as well. I don't
see any difference between the relative responsibility of drivers here
as compared to places like near Washington DC.

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:34:07 GMT, "truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com>
wrote:

>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

If speed killed, we'd have no space program, NASCAR would be gone, and
all cars would be governed to 5 mph.
Speed does not kill.
As trite as it may sound, it's the sudden stop that kills. The job of
the drivers is to apply a lot of thought to avoid that sudden stop.
It's not really hard, most people manage it every day.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:34:07 GMT, "truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com>
wrote:

>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

If speed killed, we'd have no space program, NASCAR would be gone, and
all cars would be governed to 5 mph.
Speed does not kill.
As trite as it may sound, it's the sudden stop that kills. The job of
the drivers is to apply a lot of thought to avoid that sudden stop.
It's not really hard, most people manage it every day.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:43:07 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:18:11 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
>
>> The US Interstates d
>> and the Autobahn differ in far more than merely trhe speed limits.
>> The entire philosophy regarding driving is very different in the two
>> places.
>
>That doesn't change the fact that speeds beyond 75mph are not by default
>unsafe. There are US-Freeways where even 65 can be dangerous, others would
>allow much higher speeds without problems, and _that_ is why I told
>Anthony that his answer is bull****.

Yes, you're right. Speed in and of itself is not unsafe. I never said
it is.
But the difference between the crash rates is *not* because of the
different speed limits.
>
>> In the US, driving is seen as a necessity (almost a right) and is
>> treated as such; thus, we have much lower licensing requirements as
>> well as much laxer enforcement of driving rules than the Germans have.
>
>In Germany driving is also seen as a necessity and the licensing rules are
>not nearly strict enough, but that also does not make driving faster than
>75 by default unsafe.

The licensing and enforcement are indeed tougher than here in the US.
"Not strict enough" means nothing in this case.
>
>> The result is the fact that the two road systems have a very different
>> population of drivers. The speed laws are one method of reflecting
>> that fact.
>
>The speed laws are mainly reflecting the fact that most states (like the
>'Bundeslaender' in Germany) are suffering from a distinct lack of funds
>caused by overspending of politicians.

How do you come to this conclusion? >
>> The fact that there are, in the US, some drivers who are very safe at,
>> say, 90 mph does not negate the fact that they share the roads with
>> people who do not understand what those lines in the middle of the
>> road are for.
>
>If a driver is safe at 90mph he knows to adjust his speed to conditions
>and thus does not drive 90mph where the conditions, including other
>motorists, do not allow 90mph.

Which is pretty much everywhere.
Plus, your idea allows the individual drivers to determine when it's
safe to go 90; that's obviously not the way to do things; all one
needs to do is watch those who do go 90 to see that many of them are
not safe.
>
>Anthony, on the other hand, claims that 90mph is by definition unsafe and
>that and only that was the point I was trying to make.
>
>Chris

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:43:07 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:18:11 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
>
>> The US Interstates d
>> and the Autobahn differ in far more than merely trhe speed limits.
>> The entire philosophy regarding driving is very different in the two
>> places.
>
>That doesn't change the fact that speeds beyond 75mph are not by default
>unsafe. There are US-Freeways where even 65 can be dangerous, others would
>allow much higher speeds without problems, and _that_ is why I told
>Anthony that his answer is bull****.

Yes, you're right. Speed in and of itself is not unsafe. I never said
it is.
But the difference between the crash rates is *not* because of the
different speed limits.
>
>> In the US, driving is seen as a necessity (almost a right) and is
>> treated as such; thus, we have much lower licensing requirements as
>> well as much laxer enforcement of driving rules than the Germans have.
>
>In Germany driving is also seen as a necessity and the licensing rules are
>not nearly strict enough, but that also does not make driving faster than
>75 by default unsafe.

The licensing and enforcement are indeed tougher than here in the US.
"Not strict enough" means nothing in this case.
>
>> The result is the fact that the two road systems have a very different
>> population of drivers. The speed laws are one method of reflecting
>> that fact.
>
>The speed laws are mainly reflecting the fact that most states (like the
>'Bundeslaender' in Germany) are suffering from a distinct lack of funds
>caused by overspending of politicians.

How do you come to this conclusion? >
>> The fact that there are, in the US, some drivers who are very safe at,
>> say, 90 mph does not negate the fact that they share the roads with
>> people who do not understand what those lines in the middle of the
>> road are for.
>
>If a driver is safe at 90mph he knows to adjust his speed to conditions
>and thus does not drive 90mph where the conditions, including other
>motorists, do not allow 90mph.

Which is pretty much everywhere.
Plus, your idea allows the individual drivers to determine when it's
safe to go 90; that's obviously not the way to do things; all one
needs to do is watch those who do go 90 to see that many of them are
not safe.
>
>Anthony, on the other hand, claims that 90mph is by definition unsafe and
>that and only that was the point I was trying to make.
>
>Chris

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"truckinsp" <truckinsp@ nowhere.com> wrote in message k.net>...

Why do you hate America?

> >It looks like I will have to fight dirty.
>
> Go ahead.....look like a fool.....I particularly love those who come in
> thinking the judge was born yesterday.....
>
> >I have a few things working for me:
>
> Nah, you don't
>
> >1) Where he was, and what he drove: He was parked right around a
> >corner, after I passed under an overpass. He drove a Cruiser marked
> >"Highway Patrol." I barely had time to react, and I even hit the
> >brakes the moment I saw him.
>
> So how does THAT work in your favor??????

The cop was dirty. Don't you get it?

>
> >2) The traffic was quite heavy at the time. If I had to hazard a
> >guess, I'd say that the rate of cars going by was about 100 per
> >minute. Most were traveling between 65-80mph.
>
> And you were traveling 94 mph.....and in that kind of traffic....if I were
> the judge, I'd up the charges to reckless endangerment....

Not everyone is like you grandpa. Some of use have places to go to
and we needed to be there like 5 minutes ago.

>
> >3) When I asked him how he knew that I was speeding, he said "I
> >watched your vehicle, to see if it looked like you were going above
> >90. Then I flipped on the radar and got your speed."
>
> Standard procedure....we're trained to estimate speeds.....

You mean revenue generation.

>
> >4) I then asked for permission to see the radar readout. He informed
> >me that it would not be safe to do so (too many cars going by) and
> >that the readout was erased after a few seconds.
>
> Are you kidding????? Do you think that we have time to "lock" the radar
> just so the perp can get a view??????

Why should we take your word. What if you made up a reading?

>
> >5) He also admitted that he writes many speeding tickets along that
> >same road every day.
>
> He more than likely does......looks like a good hunting ground.....
>
> >6) When the cop acted surprised at the speed of my Sentra, I simply
> >said, "Well yeah, it's a pretty good car. She gets me where I need to
> >go."
>
> Remember to repeat that to the judge in court......
>
> >7) The cop pulled me over as the sun was going down. I don't think he
> >got a good look at my face. I was just part of a string of tickets
> >he'd written that day. He wrote down my car color as "Gray," but it
> >is really a bluish-purple. I have a goatee, though it could very
> >easily become a full beard.
>
> So what???? You could easily shave too.....Do you honestly think the judge
> is going to care that he doesn't remember that you had a goatee at the
> time?????
>
> >Questions:
>
> >- Is it possible for me to find out if he's been using a POP radar? I
> >hear those can be wildly inaccurate.
> HUH??????
>
> >- Where can I find the traffic study for the toll road?
>
> Try the state DOT
> >- Will a judge grant continuance for just about anything?
>
> Maybe until you **** him off...... but probably not for a traffic ticket
> case......
>
> >- Could I convince the judge to reduce the ticket and dismiss the
> >points based on any of the above items?
>
> ROTFLMAO....go ahead and ask....wish I could be there to
> watch.....especially when you tell him the cop can't recognize you because
> you grew a beard.....
>
> Why don't you just grow up and take responsibility for your actions? THAT
> will impress the judge because he doesn't see THAT very often....