Speeding ticket: Cops allowed to park on shoulder facing opposite direction on hwy?

[Dozyproductions]

okay

[chadthestampede]

Don't you realize it's such a gray area? It would be so hard to enforce that kind of thing. Sure he crossed 300 lanes in the middle of the night on a highway that's never been driven on, but even if the hypothetical laws you speak of were in place, the officer could just say he determined that your friend was endangering himself and needed a ticket.

It would just be the cops word against yours. Or his in this case. Which is pretty much the same or worse than it is now.

I just don't understand the attitude. To me it reeks of using the excuse of social injustice as a cover because I'm mad I did something clearly against the law and got caught. Mountain out of a molehill.

[Massimo]

Technically I should receive a ticket for speeding, and I'm not trying to get out of it and say that I shouldn't have gotten one. But I do believe that speeding on a limited-access highway where there are no driveways, intersections, pedestrians, traffic lights, stop signs, cross walks, or bike lanes, and where everyone is travelling the same exact way at relatively the same speed should be a secondary traffic offense. However, I am all for cops setting speed traps and pulling people over in town where it is indeed much more dangerous to speed.

Well this is usually more fatal for you or anyone in your car. If you were to loose it on this road and crash there is a very high chance that you will not be found for hours possibly days.

Secondly if you are tired you should not be trying to drive faster to get home you should be slowing down.

Speed limits are there and the circumstances as to why you are speeding are never going to be considered it is just to hard to say what is and isn't acceptable, this would also open the door to unethical police and Corruption in the police force.

[DisgustipatedAP1]

Don't listen to these guys. Fight your ticket.

It's easy to win. Do a trial by written declaration and fight it by mail.
Speed limits are not posted for our safety, they are posted for our state's revenue.

Agreed. I win all of my tickets and my friend's tickets by doing Trial by Written Declaration.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^Chad; don't have to be a dick to make a point either.

How is everyone missing the point in this thread? Saying 'pay the fine because that's what the law says' is just as juvenile what many of you accuse the OP to be. She hasn't been complaining on how to get off the ticket... how many times does this have to be repeated?


Definitely should be laws about driving and necessary punishments. I've always interpreted the officer's main duties as being to "serve and protect". Even though they shouldn't handle judgement on the type of punishments they should be able to judge if it's a REAL crime or endangerment to others in the first place. That would definitely bring back 'justice' back into the public's perception about cops.

Buddy was driving on an EMPTY 5 lane freeway in SD at 3:00 am and crossed all 5 lanes without signaling in order to make it onto another freeway. Did he break a law yes. Did he do something necessarily wrong? According to my moral compass, not wrong enough to make sense for the $400 ticket he got for it. So how do you go about discussing what's right without all the jumps to conclusions? Jesus was there a sale for the mat or something recently?

I bet your buddy always uses his signal now. The fine did what it was designed to do.

[Dozyproductions]

but even if the hypothetical laws you speak of were in place, the officer could just say he determined that your friend was endangering himself and needed a ticket.

...

I just don't understand the attitude. To me it reeks of using the excuse of social injustice as a cover because I'm mad I did something clearly against the law and got caught. Mountain out of a molehill.

To your first point. That is where we differ. I don't believe that we need to have our hard earned money taken away from us just ensure our own safety. Hell a space rock could hit you while driving and obeying all traffic laws and just die the same. The cost to the public would be just the same because the cost for the response would be the same; you dead! I base this off of no actual numbers though. If we could find a study or some good evidence showing that raising fees (not defined as fines btw) can correlate in saving the public money (in this case), then I will be forced to reconsider my position.

To your second point. Being that a government exists as only an object to organize society and since they can take away your rights wouldn't it be healthy to constantly talk about the role 'it' plays in our lives? Besides by the nature of the word and of society, what constitutes as our 'rights', as sovereign human beings, is ever changing and interpreted differently amongst individuals.

Traffic fees (not classified as fines) can be seen as a measurement of the monetary restriction on your 'rights'. So shouldn't it be a topic worth discussing? It just so happens happens that I perceive how the justice system should work is not exactly how the one that's in place does.

#noanarchy4mebro#IMHO#BTW I don't know how the hashtags work.


@Farbin: No he doesn't necessarily do. He always does it when it means something to some one whose actually on the road.

[chadthestampede]

You're missing my point. I wasn't saying that we need our safety insured. My point was your idea is leaving it up to the officer to decide if the ticket should be issued or not based on an arbitrary criteria 'is it endangering others'.

Naturally we should question the nature, function and power of our government. However, when you bring in the discussion of rights it becomes an entirely different argument. To be honest, I think traffic violations are possibly the smallest infringement on whatever perceived rights we have. It just boils down to an inconvenience.

I feel like I'm not being too clear here. So as you say rights are interpreted different from individual to individual. Say I interpret one of my rights as being able to stick my thumb in every peach at all the grocery stores in my area. Society as a whole does not recognize this right. But I do. So I do it. The peaches are old anyway. No one is buying them. I perceive my actions aren't effecting anybody else. But when the store manager catches me knuckle deep in a peach he kicks me out of the store and forces me to pay for the peach. I view him as infringing on my rights and start a thread on r3v discussing the virtues of thumb sticking in peaches and how it should be allowed. Who is the store manager to charge me for the peach? Why would they put the peaches out if they didn't want you to stick your thumb in them? They are throwing them out anyway so why does it matter?

It's not a perfect analogy but hopefully my point is clear. Truly minor traffic offenses are the least of our problems as a nation. And naturally we have the right to discuss them. But I also have the right to say those discussions are stupid.

As far as farbins point: I didn't used to wear a seat belt because I didn't feel like it. Then I got two tickets for not having a seat belt on. Now I always wear my seat belt.

[Dozyproductions]

I get your point and lol sure you do.

I'd answer that endangerment of others isn't a arbitrary criteria. It's the very point we have a police in the first place. My idea of traffic law wouldn't be too far off from what we have now but I do believe that certain actions should carry a consequence weighted for how the situation holds and not just from the truly arbitrary black on white that's printed on paper.

Realize the intent of your analogy and that really opens a self admitted hole in my reasoning. I believe and live by the one creed; do what you'd want others to do to you. So in my interpretation that would lead me follow similar guidelines that aren't too off from what the bible mentions. (to give you a clue)

Too bad some one whose a psychopath won't give a shit about hurting some one or receiving pain so what's to fall back on? Eventually it's up to me to decide my version of being partial. As weak as it sounds the reasoning loops back to what I think is the right thing for police to do.

Such an idea can work if the theory behind our justice system stuck to it's principles. . In reality, that's not what it is. It's a money exchange that doesn't necessarily have the citizen's best interest in mind all the time. I've been going to cases semi regularly after receiving a ticket a bit ago and found some guy being fined for holding onto another bicycle while riding his own in a huge and non discrete bike lane up here in San Luis Obispo. Would you be able to tell him in the face that the $250 they charged him, for his crime remember btw, was justifiable?

Time is money and it all determines how we live.

[JBird]

What would George Washington say if he saw young uppity middle class white women unable to do 20 over in their parents' new bmw and get away with it? What is our great nation coming to? Oh the humanity!

I did not say that I should get away with it, nor do I believe that I should get away with it. Also, it was not my parents BMW.

Fight the power jbird. Keep making convoluted posts about how you aren't really mad about the ticket but that you shouldn't have gotten it and you are mad because speeding shouldn't be against the law.

I did not say that I was mad about the ticket, and I did not say that I shouldn't have gotten it. I also did not say that speeding shouldn't be against the law. I made this thread to simply ask if cops or anyone else are allowed to face the opposite direction the the shoulder of a highway, and also to start a discussion and get opinions on traffic laws and why cops patrol the highways so much more than in towns.

Never mind that people are pointing out that speeding is against the law and always will be, and that it's one of the easiest laws to follow. You don't want to go the speed limit, so why should you? Truly you should never be denied anything you want in life.

I understand that speeding is against the law, and I will always break it anyways just like everyone else on the freeways who drives 10ish over the speed limit. I have rarely seen anyone in Oregon on highway 26 go exactly 55mph. However, I will never speed in town in 25 and 35 mph zones, and through neighborhoods and such.

Chad, why don't you actually read what I wrote next time before accusing me of all of these things?

[travish325]

I did not say that I should get away with it, nor do I believe that I should get away with it. Also, it was not my parents BMW.



I did not say that I was mad about the ticket, and I did not say that I shouldn't have gotten it. I also did not say that speeding shouldn't be against the law. I made this thread to simply ask if cops or anyone else are allowed to face the opposite direction the the shoulder of a highway, and also to start a discussion and get opinions on traffic laws and why cops patrol the highways so much more than in towns.



I understand that speeding is against the law, and I will always break it anyways just like everyone else on the freeways who drives 10ish over the speed limit. I have rarely seen anyone in Oregon on highway 26 go exactly 55mph. However, I will never speed in town in 25 and 35 mph zones, and through neighborhoods and such.

Chad, why don't you actually read what I wrote next time before accusing me of all of these things?

You just said you will deliberately break the law.
Your an idiot.

[JBird]

You just said you will deliberately break the law.
Your an idiot.

Really? Is that the best you can come up with to accuse me of and call me?

You always drive exactly the speed limit and never over? You always drive in the right lane while going exactly the speed limit?

I am being more honest than most people. I will continue to drive 5 - 10 mph over the speed limit on the highways, and I will continue to drive exactly the speed limit within the city limits. In some states if you went exactly the speed limit on the highways, you would get driven off the roads (such as in the Bay Area and on 2-lane roads where there is no where to pass).

[slammin.e28]

In some states if you went exactly the speed limit on the highways, you would get driven off the roads.

Not when you're the only car on the road in the middle of the night.

[travish325]

Really? Is that the best you can come up with to accuse me of and call me?

You always drive exactly the speed limit and never over? You always drive in the right lane while going exactly the speed limit?

I am being more honest than most people. I will continue to drive 5 - 10 mph over the speed limit on the highways, and I will continue to drive exactly the speed limit within the city limits. In some states if you went exactly the speed limit on the highways, you would get driven off the roads (such as in the Bay Area and on 2-lane roads where there is no where to pass).

[FredK]

Your an idiot.

:-|

[FredK]

When Thoreau wrote of resistance to civil government, it was over slavery and the war on Mexico.

When JBird wrote of resistance to civil government, it was over receiving a speeding ticket for 21 over.