Ask A Cop!!! Post Your Questions Here!

[ShakaZulu]

I can't answer the traffic school question, since your state apparently has different requirements than mine. But, with the speed violation, I'm suprised you didn't just get a ticked for Unreasonable/Imprudent Speed. It's kind of like the "catch all" for speed violations. Think of it as the "disorderly conduct" version for traffic laws. In my state, you'd be better off with the unreas/imprud. ticket than the speeding violation at those speeds.
Good luck.

Thanks, I just spoke with the court clerk, and the citation does indicate the speed as 100+, even though the court is under the impression I was doing 99.....party time, tos this one too the layers.

 

[RonDawg]

Well, a lot of people die at 5mph.

Just like you can drown in your own bathtub. But drowning is more likely in a swimming pool, or especially open water.

Same with vehicular accidents. The higher the speed, the more likely you'll have injuries, the more severe they tend to be, and the greater chance the injury will be a fatal one.

Montana repealed the law. But what was the reason? It was because of Federal pressure. They were about to loose there Support for there hiways if they didn't. Not because of wrecks or problems.

Actually it was due to Montana's own state supreme court ruling it unconstitutional.

The threat of Federal monies being withheld due to speed limits ended in 1995 with the repeal of the 55 MPH National Speed limit. States are now free to set their own speed limits.

On the Police vs. Fire peeing match. Uhh..... I'm not a Fire man. So, the chip hit the mark with someone and you attacked the wrong group.

Umm...you say 70% of a particular group has a negative trait, and you expect members of that group to have a round of drinks with you?

As far as "attacking the wrong group", I call it as I see it. That's why being a Press Information Officer is NOT in my career future

I said I was stupid for the things I did. Without question. Don't know why you took it as a attack.

Don't know why you think I'm taking it as an attack. I'm simply refuting some of your points.

You also said "And, as long as nobody else is there, I don't see the harm." I'm not quite sure you learned your lesson the first time.

It also seems that when people do stupid things in motor vehicles, they tend to involve innocent parties in the process.

 

[RonDawg]

. But, with the speed violation, I'm suprised you didn't just get a ticked for Unreasonable/Imprudent Speed. It's kind of like the "catch all" for speed violations.

Because it's harder for the officer to prove in court.

For all speeding violations, we have to prove the defendant was traveling at the alleged speed.

If we cite for Basic Speed Law (CVC 22350), we also have to prove that the alleged speed was inherently unsafe.

At speeds above the state limits of 55/65/70 (depending on roadway), it's much easier to use CVC 22349.

For speeds over 100 MPH, CVC 22348(b) also has increased penalties over CVC 22349/22350, plus it includes provisions for license suspensions, which are mandatory for repeat violators.

 

[lamont]

what are the primary causes of traffic accidents on freeways?

- following too close?
- excessive speed?
- aggressive lane changes?
- cellphones / inattention?
- DUI?

from what i've seen on the roads i'd guess following too close and inattention cause the majority of the fender benders, while lane changes and excessive speed probably cause the bad ones... all the near-collisions that i've seen that haven't been rear-ends have been lane changes...

 

[TJcop]

Because it's harder for the officer to prove in court.

I think it's easier to prove, since you don't need the actual speed. Just like "Too fast for conditions"...you testify to the actions and how they were dangerous. That can be done without actual speeds.

If we cite for Basic Speed Law (CVC 22350)...CVC 22349...speeds over 100 MPH, CVC 22348(b) also has increased penalties over CVC 22349/22350...

Ron, let's keep the actual codes out of this. Not everyone is from your area. I want to keep this discussion as open as possible. I think we can still get points across without throwing statute number around..like 346.57(5) and 346.63(1)(a) or...well, you get the point!

 

[TJcop]

what are the primary causes of traffic accidents on freeways?

- following too close?
- excessive speed?
- aggressive lane changes?
- cellphones / inattention?
- DUI?

from what i've seen on the roads i'd guess following too close and inattention cause the majority of the fender benders, while lane changes and excessive speed probably cause the bad ones... all the near-collisions that i've seen that haven't been rear-ends have been lane changes...

Too close, too fast for conditions and inattentive are probably most common. Most serious are the combination of speed and DUI, except for the drunk who always walks away without a scratch. Ever wonder why? Because they are so limber when they're drunk...they don't tense up right before the crash. Honest!

 

[RonDawg]

I missed this before:

Also, state offenses can only be crimes and not municipal violations. That is why state violations can carry incarceration and fines. But, do you honestly think they are going to send you to prison for a parking violation? I doubt it.

I can't speak for Hawaii, but in CA state laws can be defined as infractions (no jail time, fine and/or administrative levy only), misdemeanors (maximum 1 year in county jail), or felonies (state prison time).

The overwhelming majority of CA's Vehicle Code sections that have punishments attached (that aren't "definition" sections, for example) are infractions. There are some misdemeanors, like DUI and reckless driving, with a few felonies such as auto theft, DUI causing injury, and willfully defrauding the DMV.

CA has long decriminalized parking violations, but a few states apparently still hold the threat of jail time over your head with such violations, particularly if you don't pay them.

 

[RonDawg]

I think it's easier to prove, since you don't need the actual speed. Just like "Too fast for conditions"...you testify to the actions and how they were dangerous. That can be done without actual speeds.

Not in CA. When charging "Unsafe Speed" we have to prove both the alleged speed, and why that alleged speed is unsafe.

Ron, let's keep the actual codes out of this. Not everyone is from your area. I want to keep this discussion as open as possible. I think we can still get points across without throwing statute number around..like 346.57(5) and 346.63(1)(a) or...well, you get the point!

In this case it was necessary because:
1. We're talking about Shaka's specific incident, which occurred in CA; and,
2. You're asking why in his case, the officer did "a" and not "b".

Without mentioning the specific codes (like Shaka did) it's hard to explain to someone not intimately familiar with CA's laws.

Otherwise I try to answer as generically as possible. With some topics like firearms, I avoid answering and refer the poster to their local police, due to the varying nature of such laws and the consequences of getting it wrong.

 

[RonDawg]

what are the primary causes of traffic accidents on freeways?

- following too close?
- excessive speed?
- aggressive lane changes?
- cellphones / inattention?
- DUI?

from what i've seen on the roads i'd guess following too close and inattention cause the majority of the fender benders, while lane changes and excessive speed probably cause the bad ones... all the near-collisions that i've seen that haven't been rear-ends have been lane changes...

You are correct with the tailgating, inattention, and unsafe lane changes. However, speed plays a factor too because at lower speeds, you have a greater margin of error, and if things do go wrong, the consequences aren't as bad.

I've seen people argue the "drive with the cell phone" point both ways. My opinion is that while other things are also distracting, like finding a good radio station, changing a CD, or talking to your passengers, talking on a cell phone is much more distracting. With the exception of the talking to passengers, the other distractions aren't for as long a period as talking on a phone.

However, from personal experience, I find talking on the cell phone to be more distracting than talking to someone in my own car. That includes using a "hands free" device.

 

[Mverick]

Just like you can drown in your own bathtub. But drowning is more likely in a swimming pool, or especially open water.

Same with vehicular accidents. The higher the speed, the more likely you'll have injuries, the more severe they tend to be, and the greater chance the injury will be a fatal one.



Actually it was due to Montana's own state supreme court ruling it unconstitutional.

The threat of Federal monies being withheld due to speed limits ended in 1995 with the repeal of the 55 MPH National Speed limit. States are now free to set their own speed limits.



Umm...you say 70% of a particular group has a negative trait, and you expect members of that group to have a round of drinks with you?

As far as "attacking the wrong group", I call it as I see it. That's why being a Press Information Officer is NOT in my career future



Don't know why you think I'm taking it as an attack. I'm simply refuting some of your points.

You also said "And, as long as nobody else is there, I don't see the harm." I'm not quite sure you learned your lesson the first time.

It also seems that when people do stupid things in motor vehicles, they tend to involve innocent parties in the process.

Let's see,

Drowning in a bathtub doesn't have much to do with driving.

Higher the speed more likely you'll have injuries. But, there are more injuries at lower speeds because there are more wrecks at lower speeds.

Montana without a doubt repealed there unlimited speed limit because of the fed threatening to withhold funding for there roads. You can spin it anyway you want but that's what happened. Not because of accidents.

And, OK. I don't have to drink with you. There are plenty of people I don't have faith in that I have dinner with and drink with. I don't believe in there work ethic or there morality. But, I try to get along with them and believe they are right for following there own path. I don't try to tell people how to live. Although, I do live in the midwest which is the bible belt. Talking to people from CA it seems they can't pee without some official telling them how they have to do it. There are a lot of people I dive with that I don't trust. Guess what I still dive... LOL They aren't my backup and I don't dive in enviroments that are questionable with them.

Why would I think it's an attack. You called fire man Fire peeing.... Hmmm.... What do you call an attack?

And with attacking the wrong group. "You call it like you see it".... You saw it wrong. I ain't fire protection and you made a cheap shot at someone... You're appology to them would have been nice but you didn't see your wrong doing. Does that make you fit the profile?