Ticketed for hypermiling

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

Update: so apparently last night was just a "hearing" type of thing where you can either pay the fine or proceed forward, Now I have to go back April 11.

I kinda figured thats what it would be. They have a row of people go through like McDonalds in the hopes some will just give up there or get frustrated because they live out of town and don't want to make another appearance.

[itsageo]

dont be a dick and do 28 on the highway be a wildman do 55

[Diesel_Dave]

Okay, so here's the update.

Went to court tonight. The officer and prosecutor stood up and the officer went through the story. Pretty much everything he said was correct, except he said that I was in the fast lane the whole time. He said he observed me comming to a near stop when he was going the other direction, he then turned around, followed me and clocked me at 28 mph in a 60, said he pulled me over and did the sobriety tests, which I passed. Note, recall that the ticket was for the "near stop", and I was given a warning for the 28 in a 60 under the "low speed vehicle" law.

They then asked if I had any questions for the officer. I asked the officer if he observed any vehicles behind me at the time of the "near stop". He said that there was at least two. I asked how close the vehicles were to mine, he stated less than 1/8 mile. I asked if he had any evidence of that, and he said no. This was completely untrue--I had checked my rearview mirror and there were absolutely no other cars visible, and the visiblity is over 1/2 mile (probably about 1 mile). I then said exactly that--that there were not any vehicle close to mine at the time of the "near stop". I said that since there were no other vehicles, then my movement was reasonably safe. I also brought up the "low speed vehicle" warning as well as the minimum speed limit issue (which the officer admitted he had told me, but couldn't provide the law). I gave a copy of both laws to the judge along with the definition of "low speed vehicle" from the NHTSB and stated that I thought the officer was doing his job to pull me over, but that I felt he passed judgment too soon and wanted to cite me for something (the warning and the minimum speed limit were evidence of that). I also stated (near the beginning) that the reason that I was going slow in the first place was because I was an engineer and the getting good fuel mileage was my hobby, I wanted to know my mileage at low speed, and that I thought at the time it would be a good opportunity given there were no other vehicles.

So basically, it came down to the officer's word vs. mine that there were or were not any vehicles behind me at the time of the "near stop". The judge said that in these cases, they don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, just reasonable probability. So the judge said I was guilty and gave me a $1 fine with $115.50 in court costs.

Oh well.

[redpoint5]

Sorry to hear that Dave. Your story is nearly exactly what I expected.

When an officer issues a citation, they always feel justified in their actions. Often when the facts don't support their actions, or they failed to note exact details such as which lane you are in, they will say whatever will strengthen their case. They might even believe they are telling the truth because why else would they have given the citation unless you did something to warrant it (In their mind).

I've had a judge side with an officer despite another witness corroborating my testimony and mathematical evidence showing what the officer stated was impossible. On the street the judge told me he believed me, but had to side with the officer since he was in good standing and his career depends on the truthfulness of his word. In other words, my few hundred bucks and time are a small price to pay for the preservation of an image and a career.

All this to say, you win some, you loose some. Glad to see that you did your best to fight it.

My question is, does this fine have to be calculated into the mod cost vs. savings discussions that often pop up on ecomodder?

[Nerys]

Interesting. basically you won. the judge agreed with you

hence the $1 fine. but he wanted "his cut" hence the $1 fine.

you see the state gets a "cut" of these tickets. again hence the $1 fine but the local municipality gets to keep all the "costs"

hence the $1 ticket which lets them tack on the $115 costs.

Personally I would appeal it its a bogus decision but its a small enough amount to maybe not be worth the effort.

this is why everyone should have a dash cam. then you could PROVE your cae beyond any doubt.

[redyaris]

The $1.- fine is a message to the peace officer; that he/she should not waste the courts time with matters of this sort.
The $115.50 court cost is relatively small compaired to the hourly cost of running a court house and all the people in it...
In Canada there is no such thing as court costs for traffic court, we see that as an impedement to access to justice, and thus a violation of our charter of rights and freedoms.
I think Sweden or Norway, have a traffic ticket fine system that bases the amount of the fine on Your income!? I remember on TV an interview with a guy who was fined $30,000 for a speeding ticket. He did drive a rather expensive Mercedes...

[jtbo]

Originally Posted by redyaris

The $1.- fine is a message to the peace officer; that he/she should not waste the courts time with matters of this sort.
The $115.50 court cost is relatively small compaired to the hourly cost of running a court house and all the people in it...
In Canada there is no such thing as court costs for traffic court, we see that as an impedement to access to justice, and thus a violation of our charter of rights and freedoms.
I think Sweden or Norway, have a traffic ticket fine system that bases the amount of the fine on Your income!? I remember on TV an interview with a guy who was fined $30,000 for a speeding ticket. He did drive a rather expensive Mercedes...

In Finland you can get fine of 300 000 if you have big income, I think that we hold close to world record of fines from relatively low speeding offence, but just this week one was convicted from driving over 140kph against red light, killing and permanently disabling people, he got 1.5 year no jail and small fine as he was young and poor.

Norway has perhaps bit more serious punishments from drunk driving etc. but I'm not sure if they have fines that go as high as ours and if their system is as badly off tuned than ours.

I think that there would be lot of room to improve in our system.


Does officer has video from his car? I would of thought that all police cars have now system that records all the time what happens and I think that there might be chance to get that video based on freedom of information act or such?
Don't know your system too well, just bits and pieces, but at least in here we can have video that is always recorded in police cars, that is because person must be allowed all evidence so he can defend himself.

But maybe to get that one would need to appeal and that might become costly.

[rollercoaster]

Cops write ridiculous summons/tickets to pay for their ridiculous salaries and pensions. The liberals attempt to brainwash us that we (the sheeple) need the police and more police for our own protection, when it is the morons in society that politicians create laws for -for our own (sensationalized) safety.

Cops will absolutely lie through their teeth when sworn in. Been there, heard that. The national Police mantra is, do as I say -not as I do. Unfortunately you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Next time the PBA comes around looking for donations (to pad their waste)- tell them to pound salt- you donated at court.

[Frank Lee]

On a related note, I believe it was the conservatives that gave us the dept of homeland security- biggest addition to the police state in one swell foop there ever was. And that is all I will note about the political sides of it.

[larrybuck]

Sorry for that outcome! Does this put points against your license, or help to hurt your insurance rates?