If it’s a traffic violation you have a good chance of the cop no showing to court.
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
692 points (98.2% liked)
Greentext
4390 readers
1437 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That doesn't mean anything in a lot of countries.
Is going to court over traffic violations common internationally? I thought that was a US thing
I challenged a licence suspension in Australia when I was 19 years old. I gladly paid the $560 fine but I would’ve lost my licence for three months because I was driving 7km/h over the limit on a ‘double-demerits’ weekend. The magistrate sent me to a fortnightly driver’s course for 12 weeks, all the while I kept my licence, and after the course was over I fronted court again and successfully argued my three month suspension down to four weeks.
I’m pretty sure that going to court over traffic violations is a thing in any country that allows going to court over traffic violations.
FYI in most Australian jurisdictions, you can’t demand that the individual police officer who fined you attend court to defend themselves. That part is most likely a US thing.
All that over 7kmh? Holy shit, most cops in the usa won't bother you doing 9mph over on highways and like 5-7mph on normal roads.
Yeah, I was on my P-plates (provisional licence) at the time where you have can have up to seven demerit points before losing your licence. As a P-plater, every speeding offence automatically is moderated to the maximum value, four points, and because it was a ‘double-demerits’ weekend (for public holidays), that four points was doubled to eight points. I received more demerit points than km/h I was over the limit.
For reference, if I was on my full licence and it wasn’t double-demerits, it would have been one point out of a total twelve. Instead, I got eight points which suspended my licence. Thankfully the magistrate I had was reasonable and granted my reduction - that also meant I didn’t have to pay court costs and I represented myself, so the whole thing cost me the initial $35 court booking fee. I managed to get something that resembled justice out of it, but I’ll still have a bitter taste in my mouth because of the whole rigamarole for a long time to come.
That's insane, it's not like you were reckless driving, and what the hell is a double demerits weekend? How is that even fair, like the weekend magically makes moving violations worse somehow. I'm all for being stricter here in the USA for our licensing requirements, but it sounds like you guys in aussie land went a little to far.
The logic is that road deaths go up during holiday periods (which is sadly a statistical fact here) so they ramp up enforcement and double the penalties for those periods to try to correct for it. I’m not a huge fan of the idea, but from a purely statistical and scientific standpoint it does at least make some amount of sense. My individual circumstance is a bit of a curveball because my punishment was way outstripping my crime, but I do have some understanding for the idea of double demerits. I think my issue was that what should have been a one-point offence (doubled to two points) became an eight-point offence just because I was on a provisional licence. That part I’m still very salty about.
As a total stranger who who doesn't know you a dot, I can totally unemotional and impartially say that you received justice.
Speed kills, literally. And as an inexperienced driver, you shouldn't be speeding a dot. Let alone anyone else.
If a kid had run out from behind a parked car, tree or whatever then you have a much better chance of not killing them if you're going the speed limit.
The fact that you were even caught, while armed with all the knowledge you have about increased deaths and thus increased demerits, tells me you should have made better choices.
I have been caught speeding 3 times in my 20 years of driving and I deserved every single one of them, and more.
That you were able to further reduce your punishment is further evidence of the system working.
Frankly I think your posts reveal an attitude of a victim rather than a perpetrator, which is a shame because you should probably have taken away something about the need to not speed in order to not kill people.
Everyone thinks they're a great driver, and no one thinks it's going to be them who has the accident that kills someone. But that's the thing about accidents, they're unpredictable and undesired.
All that said and done- if you were speeding by less than 10% I think it's harsh and I'm glad you got to reduce the punishment! Over here we have 20mph zones to protect kids and 7kmh over is inexcusable in my book.
The area in which I was speeding was a distributor from our major city, with no pedestrian, bike or parking lanes available. I had exactly zero chance of hitting a child running out from behind a parked car because there’s no capacity to park cars on that road nor are any pedestrians present on the road. I was also driving on a wide corner, where speed/velocity can be easily distorted by many factors when measured from a stationary perspective, so I cannot be sure that the reading was entirely accurate. There are no pedestrians allowed on the distributor either; nor is there a walking space or lane. My only chance of causing injury or death to others due to my minimal speeding was in a collision with another vehicle.
This instance is the only time I’ve ever been fined for speeding in my seventeen years of driving. I’ve personally driven ~5km/h over the limit without any further fines or punishments, including past police cars with active LIDAR guns pointed at me and through speed cameras, indicating that there is simply no viable reason to stop and fine drivers who are over the limit within a reasonable margin of error.
Beyond all of the above, I’ll note AGAIN that I was happy to pay the $560 fine (which I deemed appropriate but costly, and costed me $80 for each km/h over the limit while I was earning $13/hour) but fought only the suspension of my licence. I didn’t believe that a single instance of driving 7km/h over the limit justified a suspension, and I still agree with that idea.
My issue was the severity of my punishment with reference to my crime. I definitely committed a crime (yes, I am a criminal), and deserved punishment for doing so, but I disagreed with the severity of that punishment. That doesn’t infer that I learned nothing; nor that I am uncaring of my fellow citizens.
I don’t think I’m a great driver, mostly because I’ve taken Low Risk Driver courses, have a Bachelor in Psychology (including driver/traffic psychology) and am acutely aware of the effects that driving hubris has on capacity - statistics often show that those who rate themselves as ‘better than average’ drivers are more likely to commit traffic offences. I do, however, know that I’m a competent driver which my last sixteen years since this event without demerit should indicate.
By the way, I’ve been a child protection caseworker for almost a decade now, and so to infer that I don’t care for the safety of children might not be the best argument to make.
Seems like we agree then.
I don’t agree with your position that my ultimate penalty was congruent with my crime. EDIT: nor that it represented a just outcome.
Okay, well I'm not trying to change your opinion as it's completely valid...as is mine.
Have a good day.
As a total stranger who doesn't know you a dot.
You're a douchebag.
Ad hominem attacks always reveal the character.
Wow you sure got me, "hurt durr much logical fallacy"
No one takes those seriously.
Yup. Cops in my area usually won't bother if you're under 10mph over (16kph), though maybe they'd drop that in a school zone. 7kmk is pretty much nothing...
French guy here: I went to court once because the cop lied and needed tickets for his quota. I had all the proofs. The judge basically told me “I don’t give a fuck, you pay.” It’s useless.
Maybe don't be French next time.
time for another revolution
Rookie mistake if I'm being perfectly honest
It's not as much of a thing but people do object fines, most commonly mail-in fines when the owner wasn't driving.
Is going to court over traffic violations common internationally? I thought that was a US thing
And if it's below $1000, people often represent themselves because everyone knows lawyers are too expensive to justify it.
Yup, and most tickets in my area are like $100-150, assuming it's just speeding and not insanely fast (i.e. <20mph over, most cops will cut it to 10 over on a first violation).
Not around here. Cops live for traffic court. They sit around all day doing very little.
not anymore
At least in the US, you should always get a lawyer for traffic tickets. The real cost isn’t whatever the court charges you, it’s whatever your insurance does.
My understanding is usually you can go before the judge and explain that the higher insurance rates will be a burden for you. Usually you don't necessarily need a lawyer to go and ask for that. The judge will often add some stipulations like double the fine you pay now, and you can't get another ticket for a certain amount of time.
When I lived in Illinois they had formalized the process and called it "court supervision" which is an option you can check on the ticket, but you do have to appear in court. Can't get another speeding ticket for a year, and they won't report it to insurance.
When I got a second speeding ticket though after 11 months, I did hire a lawyer. He requested continuance for me, so that by the time they heard the case, it had been 12 months, and I could do a second court supervision. Since then I decided to try to avoid getting more tickets.
Yup, I did that as a kid with my first speeding ticket, and got it placed on deferral. I didn't even need to talk to the judge, I just went to pay the fine and they offered that as an option. Basically, as long as I didn't get another ticket for 7 years, it would be as if it never happened. My ticket went from $100 -> $150, but my insurance would've gone up way more than that.
So, I drove extra careful until I moved out, and I got my second ticket around 7-8 years later, but in a different state (traveling near Las Vegas w/ flow of traffic...). I currently have a clean driving record, and I didn't get a ding on my insurance until those dings meant a lot less (mid to late 20s).
Every time I talk to people about going to court for a speeding ticket, everyone shares the same story:
The judge is very fair. Sometimes, they shave the fee significantly. Sometimes they cancel it.
I don't fully understand judges and what they get assigned. But it feels like getting the cool substitute teacher when to go to contest a speeding ticket.
id rather pay a lawyer than reward the state for puking in my ass
