"Citizen's arrest" traffic offense

[Spike]

Something weird happened to me tonight.

I was pulled over by an officer from a small town police department. The officer informed me that some woman had been following me for several miles and was claiming that I had come within inches of hitting her car, that I was swerving through traffic and speeding, and that I had nearly hit three other vehicles, including a large truck. None of this was true. I did pass some slower cars that were inexplicably going about 50 in a 65, and all I can figure is that she was one of them. She had called police, who raced down the highway to find me. The woman actually pulled in right behind the police cruiser. I found that kind of odd, since if I was racing through traffic the way she said, how could she follow me without committing the same offense?

The officer behaved fairly professionally. However, after keeping my license for about ten minutes he came to my car and informed me that he was writing out a complaint for reckless driving, but that it wasn't actually a valid citation. He said that since he didn't witness any of what the woman claimed I did, he couldn't swear out the ticket. But he said that she insisted on filing a complaint against me, and therefore he had to write the ticket without swearing to it. In order for it to become an active, valid citation, she has to go to the magistrate's office next week and swear out the complaint herself.

The cop said it was like a "citizen's arrest." The ticket will already be in the system but won't become valid unless she shows up and signs it. If she doesn't show up it doesn't become active, but the cop couldn't tell me if she has any time limit on swearing to it. If she does show up, she and I will both have to go to court in August for her to tell her lies to a judge.

I've never heard of a civilian swearing out a traffic citation. If it goes to court, I have no idea what to expect. It's been eight years since I had a ticket, so my driving record is pretty clean. From what I can tell it's essentially my word against hers. I have no witnesses, since I was alone.

Anybody ever heard of this kind of thing? Is a judge likely to rule against me based entirely on the word of some nutcase?

[Another side]

I've always viewed traffic court as the one place in our judicial system where you are guilty until proven innocent, primarily because it's usually your word against the officer's word and city judges can't make a living for long by finding all the city cops are liars, so they almost always side with the officer.

But with you against another citizen ... I'd think she has the burden of proof, and assuming she was alone in the car and has no other witnesses (her boyfriend wasn't driving in the car behind her, was he?) I'd think you would be OK.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if she bothered to show up to swear to the complaint, let alone show up in court to "prosecute" it.

As to your question, yes, I've heard of these sorts of tickets, but I've never been around to see the outcome.

Edited to add: Get a copy of the officer's report before court, then call him to the stand FIRST to verify what he wrote, with her out of the courtroom. THEN, call her, ask her for a detailed analysis of the alleged acts, compare them to what she told the officer and go over his report line-by-line with her on the stand. Test her memory and ask for elaboration. If she's lying, it will come out( I would think).

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Just hire a goon to make her "disappear."

[east coast producer]

[H]e came to my car and informed me that he was writing out a complaint for wreckless driving

You should be complimented for "wreckless" driving, not punished!! :-)

Reckless driving in every state I've lived in is a misdemeanor, and, unlike a felony, cops can't cite you unless they witness it. I guess that's why he didn't sign it.

Since I'm not a lawyer, but pretend to be one on Medialine, I personally wouldn't worry about it. If it goes to trial, it's her word against yours... and unless she has video of the alleged driving or credible (non-related to her)witnesses, an honest judge couldn't find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wouldn't bother involving the cop.. and I definitely wouldn't call that woman. Since she's her own witness, I'd think you wouldn't want to risk intimindating a witness or whatever. I'd just let it go. Nothing will come of it.

I suppose you could sue her for slander, defamation of character, harrassment and the accompaying emotional distress just to be a prick.

[Bureau Chief]

In most states, yes, she has to be able to and WILLING to swear in court that she witnessed your thoughtless act of actually driving the posted speed limit. In my state, when called out for a "witnessed act", the first thing the cop asks the dispatcher is, if the witness will testify, if the answer is no, then they dont bother with follow up, if the answer is yes, then they have to stay on scene and fill out paperwork etc ...and then show up for court.

If it goes that far, make sure:
#1 that she doesnt have it on video tape.
#2 question her eyesight.
#3 question her qualifications to judge someone elses driving.

In my state, if you have no qualifications or certifications in a given area, they any statements you make on the stand are considered opinion and/or heresay.

[east coast producer]

Just to nitpick -- and since I'm trying hard not to work right now -- a posted speed *limit* is exactly that -- a LIMIT. It's not a requirement that you travel AT that speed, just that you're not going faster than that. Certainly you can be cited for obstructing traffic if you're going 5 mph in a 70, but traveling a speed that you feel is safe for you isn't a crime.

[!]

I suppose you could sue her for slander, defamation of character, harrassment and the accompaying emotional distress just to be a prick.I think that's entirely justified. When people try to play cop, they ought to understand what the impact of that little game can be.

[The Fedora]

Agreed. Go get 'em Spike. What a load of crap.

[TVMattNYC]

What's wrong with going 50 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour speed limit zone?

Speed limits are MAXIMUMS, not minimums, Boo.

[The Fedora]

Matt, in some states where the roads are wide open? It's an easy way to get yourself killed.

[!]

What's wrong with going 50 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour speed limit zone?

Speed limits are MAXIMUMS, not minimums, Boo.


Hey, another Joe Friday fan! "I'm well aware of the federally mandated speed limit, Streebeck. But, did it ever occur to you that, by going eight miles an hour slower, we might save some gasoline and ease the burden on the poor taxpayers out there who pay our salaries?"

[TVMattNYC]

Matt, in some states where the roads are wide open? It's an easy way to get yourself killed.

Then maybe roads shouldn't be "wide open" in the first place.

In most places where there IS a "minimum" speed limit in zones where the LIMIT is 65, the minimum is only *40* miles an hour.

[!]

Then maybe roads shouldn't be "wide open" in the first place.

In most places where there IS a "minimum" speed limit in zones where the LIMIT is 65, the minimum is only *40* miles an hour.
In your insular little world, maybe. But in other places it is higher.

[TVMattNYC]

In your insular little world, maybe. But in other places it is higher.

And unless there's a posted MINIMUM speed, going 50 miles per hour is well within any driver's right, as long as they're not exceeding the limit.

[!]

And unless there's a posted MINIMUM speed, going 50 miles per hour is well within any driver's right, as long as they're not exceeding the limit.
You don't drive. do you?

I'll bet you get into taxis and say, "Oh, just take your time. No need to hurry. Speed limit's, what, 35? Go ahead and do 25."

If you deign to take subways or buses, I'll bet you tell the drivers to do the same thing, huh?

By the way, one of the ways I know you don't drive is that cops are now issuing tickets for "impeding the smooth flow of traffic," which can be written for any speed.

[TVMattNYC]

You don't drive. do you?

I'll bet you get into taxis and say, "Oh, just take your time. No need to hurry. Speed limit's, what, 35? Go ahead and do 25."

If you deign to take subways or buses, I'll bet you tell the drivers to do the same thing, huh?

Actually, I've been driving for 25 years.

Safely.

And when I DO take cabs, I implore them to follow the posted limits.

[TVMattNYC]

By the way, one of the ways I know you don't drive is that cops are now issuing tickets for "impeding the smooth flow of traffic," which can be written for any speed.

Bullsh!t.

No judge in America is going to back a cop writing a ticket for people who AREN'T breaking the law.

[The Fedora]

Here in Texas going 50 or 55 in a 70 is an easy way to get a Big Rig up your back bumper. These boys (and girls) do not play around. DPS Troopers will give you a ticket if they feel you are obstructing the flow of traffic.

Now that I think of it, try doing 50 or 55 on the Capital Beltway. You get get shot, especially if you are in the left lane just trying to make a point.

You wanna do less than the speed limit? Fine. Stay off of interstates and major highways.

[Kace]

Probably get someone for reckless and endangerment and all that...especially if they're intentionally going really slow.

[TVMattNYC]

Here in Texas going 50 or 55 in a 70 is an easy way to get a Big Rig up your back bumper. These boys (and girls) do not play around. DPS Troopers will give you a ticket if they feel you are obstructing the flow of traffic.

Now that I think of it, try doing 50 or 55 on the Capital Beltway. You get get shot, especially if you are in the left lane just trying to make a point.

You wanna do less than the speed limit? Fine. Stay off of interstates and major highways.

No. Limits are MAXIMUMS, not minimums. And unless there's a posted MINIMUM, the nation's interstates and major highways are open to all who obey the traffic laws, including "slower" drivers.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Actually, I've been driving for 25 years.

Funny. Didn't you say in a previous post that you didn't DO cars?? I thought they weren't an option for you.

:rolleyes:

[The Fedora]

yeah... well.

I have had many cops tell me they ticket for obstruction/driving too slow. Here in TX, Oklahoma (where the limit is 75) and back home in DC.

[TVMattNYC]

Funny. Didn't you say in a previous post that you didn't DO cars?? I thought they weren't an option for you.

:rolleyes:

No Clownie, I never said that.

Maybe it was one of your OTHER boyfriends.

[TVMattNYC]

yeah... well.

I have had many cops tell me they ticket for obstruction/driving too slow. Here in TX, Oklahoma (where the limit is 75) and back home in DC.

And again, there is no judge in any jurisdiction that will support a ticket written by a cop for someone who refused to break the law by exceeding a posted speed LIMIT.

[!]

Bullsh!t.

No judge in America is going to back a cop writing a ticket for people who AREN'T breaking the law.
Say that all you want, but I've seen it done.
It is possible to drive unsafely without violating a specific law.

Then there's this, from an AOL news story:
"In some states, including California, a dawdling motorist can be cited for driving too slowly. Police Officer Pete Kim of the California Highway Patrol says that while it's not common, you could get a ticket if, 'you're blocking traffic or creating a road hazard on the freeway.' He mentions a couple reasons why someone would drive that slowly. The car could be suffering engine trouble or the driver could be impaired, for example. Both will likely attract the attention of a police officer."

from KOMO:
"SEATTLE -- Even if you're going the speed limit it might not be enough to prevent you from getting a ticket if you're holding up traffic in the fast lane.

State troopers are on a mission to make sure the left lane on area freeways is used for its intended purpose: passing.

'We're doing 58, 59 miles an hour and they are just sitting there, traffic's passing them on the right hand side," Trooper Keith Leary said while pointing out a car in the left lane of Interstate 5. "That's exactly what we don't want to see happen.'"

A clip from DC:

"The trooper asked Conrad why he was driving 50 mph. Conrad said he was saving gas.

The trooper, however, was more concerned with motorist safety and issued Conrad a warning for driving 15 mph under the posted speed limit."

There are a lot more of these examples available.

[!]

And again, there is no judge in any jurisdiction that will support a ticket written by a cop for someone who refused to break the law by exceeding a posted speed LIMIT.
Your source for this is...?

[TVMattNYC]

Say that all you want, but I've seen it done.
It is possible to drive unsafely without violating a specific law.

Then there's this, from an AOL news story:
"In some states, including California, a dawdling motorist can be cited for driving too slowly. Police Officer Pete Kim of the California Highway Patrol says that while it's not common, you could get a ticket if, 'you're blocking traffic or creating a road hazard on the freeway.' He mentions a couple reasons why someone would drive that slowly. The car could be suffering engine trouble or the driver could be impaired, for example. Both will likely attract the attention of a police officer."

from KOMO:
"SEATTLE -- Even if you're going the speed limit it might not be enough to prevent you from getting a ticket if you're holding up traffic in the fast lane.

State troopers are on a mission to make sure the left lane on area freeways is used for its intended purpose: passing.

'We're doing 58, 59 miles an hour and they are just sitting there, traffic's passing them on the right hand side," Trooper Keith Leary said while pointing out a car in the left lane of Interstate 5. "That's exactly what we don't want to see happen.'"

A clip from DC:

"The trooper asked Conrad why he was driving 50 mph. Conrad said he was saving gas.

The trooper, however, was more concerned with motorist safety and issued Conrad a warning for driving 15 mph under the posted speed limit."

There are a lot more of these examples available.

And again, you have not cited a single example of motorists being cited for refusing to EXCEED the posted speed limit.

[TVMattNYC]

Your source for this is...?

Common sense.

You should try it on for size.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Common sense.

You should try it on for size.

Geez, Prodouche. You're extra *****y today. Must be your time of the month.

[!]

Common sense.

You should try it on for size.And how many stories have YOU run when a judge made a decision that defied "common sense"?

I've run dozens.

[!]

And again, you have not cited a single example of motorists being cited for refusing to EXCEED the posted speed limit.

And unless there's a posted MINIMUM speed, going 50 miles per hour is well within any driver's right, as long as they're not exceeding the limit.

But you're wrong on this one, based on real-world evidence.

[TVMattNYC]

A clip from DC:

"The trooper asked Conrad why he was driving 50 mph. Conrad said he was saving gas.

The trooper, however, was more concerned with motorist safety and issued Conrad a warning for driving 15 mph under the posted speed limit."

There are a lot more of these examples available.

If the trooper was TRULY concerned with motorist safety, he would have been going after drivers EXCEEDING the speed limit.

[TVMattNYC]

And how many stories have YOU run when a judge made a decision that defied "common sense"?

I've run dozens.

Again, judges are charged with upholding the law.

No judge is going to support a ticket issued for someone refusing to BREAK the law.

[!]

Again, judges are charged with upholding the law.

No judge is going to support a ticket issued for someone refusing to BREAK the law.


Tennessee Supreme Court Upholds Tickets for Dawdlers
Tennessee Supreme Court ruling upholds tickets for drivers moving so slowly that traffic backs up.

Driving through Tennessee so slowly that traffic begins to back up is now a ticketable offense. The state's supreme court on Monday issued a unanimous ruling making it clear that dawdling on the road can be considered a crime.

The case began when Chattanooga Police Officer Joseph Shaw noticed a slow-moving Nissan Altima on Market Street at about 1am on May 11, 2005. Shaw estimated the Altima driver was driving at 25 MPH on the four-lane road, even though the speed limit was 35 and the rest of the traffic on the road was flowing smoothly at 50 MPH. This difference in speed caused a backup, according to Officer Shaw.

"When (approaching automobiles) would come up behind us they would have to brake fairly quickly and change lanes in order to pass," Shaw testified. "And there was moderate traffic even for that time of night on that road."

Shaw followed the Altima for about fifteen blocks before deciding to pull over the driver, Richard Adam Hannah. Hannah had no license and showed some signs of intoxication. A later search discovered a small amount of cocaine and marijuana in the car, resulting in the arrest of Hannah and his passengers. Shaw's basis for the stop was a law against impeding the flow of traffic.

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or compliance with law," Tennessee Code section 55-8-154 states.

A trial court decided this law did not apply to the situation at hand and threw out the evidence against Hannah and his passengers. The trial court, with the support of appellate courts, interpreted the word "impede" in the statute as coming to a stop on the road and blocking other drivers from continuing on their way. The supreme court did not buy this interpretation.

"Had the legislature intended for a violation to occur only when an automobile was completely stopped in the roadway or caused other automobiles to stop, we presume it would have said so," Chief Justice William M. Barker wrote. "Accordingly, we agree with the state that the trial court's interpretation that a driver must cause other automobiles to come to a stop and wait for an unreasonable amount of time is too restrictive and would essentially emasculate the import of the statute."

The high court found that drivers may travel slowly, but only if that slowness does not cause a backup for other motorists or violate a posted minimum speed. The court also added in a footnote that driving at the speed limit is "normal and reasonable" even when everybody else on the road is traveling much more quickly.

[TVMattNYC]

Tennessee Supreme Court Upholds Tickets for Dawdlers
Tennessee Supreme Court ruling upholds tickets for drivers moving so slowly that traffic backs up.

Driving through Tennessee so slowly that traffic begins to back up is now a ticketable offense. The state's supreme court on Monday issued a unanimous ruling making it clear that dawdling on the road can be considered a crime.

The case began when Chattanooga Police Officer Joseph Shaw noticed a slow-moving Nissan Altima on Market Street at about 1am on May 11, 2005. Shaw estimated the Altima driver was driving at 25 MPH on the four-lane road, even though the speed limit was 35 and the rest of the traffic on the road was flowing smoothly at 50 MPH. This difference in speed caused a backup, according to Officer Shaw.

"When (approaching automobiles) would come up behind us they would have to brake fairly quickly and change lanes in order to pass," Shaw testified. "And there was moderate traffic even for that time of night on that road."

Shaw followed the Altima for about fifteen blocks before deciding to pull over the driver, Richard Adam Hannah. Hannah had no license and showed some signs of intoxication. A later search discovered a small amount of cocaine and marijuana in the car, resulting in the arrest of Hannah and his passengers. Shaw's basis for the stop was a law against impeding the flow of traffic.

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or compliance with law," Tennessee Code section 55-8-154 states.

A trial court decided this law did not apply to the situation at hand and threw out the evidence against Hannah and his passengers. The trial court, with the support of appellate courts, interpreted the word "impede" in the statute as coming to a stop on the road and blocking other drivers from continuing on their way. The supreme court did not buy this interpretation.

"Had the legislature intended for a violation to occur only when an automobile was completely stopped in the roadway or caused other automobiles to stop, we presume it would have said so," Chief Justice William M. Barker wrote. "Accordingly, we agree with the state that the trial court's interpretation that a driver must cause other automobiles to come to a stop and wait for an unreasonable amount of time is too restrictive and would essentially emasculate the import of the statute."

The high court found that drivers may travel slowly, but only if that slowness does not cause a backup for other motorists or violate a posted minimum speed. The court also added in a footnote that driving at the speed limit is "normal and reasonable" even when everybody else on the road is traveling much more quickly.

Point?

I said no judge is going to uphold a ticket issued to any motorist refusing to EXCEED the posted speed limit.

This article does not refute my point.

[The Fedora]

I wasn't talking about drivers speeding. I was referring to those driving the speed limit versus those driving 15-20 UNDER the limit and blocking traffic.

EDIT: I rarely speed. <--- that truck isn't made for going super fast.

[TVMattNYC]

I wasn't talking about drivers speeding. I was referring to those driving the speed limit versus those driving 15-20 UNDER the limit and blocking traffic.

EDIT: I rarely speed. <--- that truck isn't made for going super fast.

Fine. I'll agree that driving 20 miles per hour UNDER the speed limit -- under ideal road conditions -- could be hazardous.

[The Fedora]

That's The Whole Point Of The Story.

[TVMattNYC]

That's The Whole Point Of The Story.

But your story did not refute my point that drivers should not be expected to EXCEED posted speed limits in the interest of not impeding "traffic flow". Indeed, the police should be responsible for ensuring that "traffic flow" does NOT exceed the posted limits.

[!]

Bullsh!t.

No judge in America is going to back a cop writing a ticket for people who AREN'T breaking the law.

Which is why the Tenessee Supreme Court applied Tennessee Code section 55-8-154 is finding that a driver could be driving below a posted limit and still be ticketed.

[TVMattNYC]

Which is why the Tenessee Supreme Court applied Tennessee Code section 55-8-154 is finding that a driver could be driving below a posted limit and still be ticketed.

And MY point was that no judge would support a ticket issued to a driver who refused to break the law by EXCEEDING the posted speed limit.

[Tripe Face]

I wasn't talking about drivers speeding. I was referring to those driving the speed limit versus those driving 15-20 UNDER the limit and blocking traffic.

EDIT: I rarely speed. <--- that truck isn't made for going super fast.

Fedora... that truck is for drivin' to the Seven 11 to pick up a six pack of Natural Light and hope to meet some girls with tattoos and mullets.

Dude, get yourself out of Texas and back up here to civilization. Please... for the children's sake.

[The Fedora]

BWAHAHAHA.

No Natural Light for me! Not even Natty Boh.

Bring me a Pale Ale any day.

Now, about my truck. There isn't a CB nor a Rebel flag. This is not ford f150 with a gun rack in the back.

You get me a job in your shop and I'd be back there quicker that you could say "moving expenses." :)

And the truck comes with me. I'd love to take her out on to Assateague.

[!]

Dude, get yourself out of Texas and back up here to civilization. Don't you live in West Virginia?

[Lazlo Toth]

We don't make citizens arrests here in California. If we don't like the way you drive, we shoot you.

[Diplomat]

Tennessee Supreme Court Upholds Tickets for Dawdlers
Tennessee Supreme Court ruling upholds tickets for drivers moving so slowly that traffic backs up.

Driving through Tennessee so slowly that traffic begins to back up is now a ticketable offense. The state's supreme court on Monday issued a unanimous ruling making it clear that dawdling on the road can be considered a crime.

The case began when Chattanooga Police Officer Joseph Shaw noticed a slow-moving Nissan Altima on Market Street at about 1am on May 11, 2005. Shaw estimated the Altima driver was driving at 25 MPH on the four-lane road, even though the speed limit was 35 and the rest of the traffic on the road was flowing smoothly at 50 MPH. This difference in speed caused a backup, according to Officer Shaw.

"When (approaching automobiles) would come up behind us they would have to brake fairly quickly and change lanes in order to pass," Shaw testified. "And there was moderate traffic even for that time of night on that road."

Shaw followed the Altima for about fifteen blocks before deciding to pull over the driver, Richard Adam Hannah. Hannah had no license and showed some signs of intoxication. A later search discovered a small amount of cocaine and marijuana in the car, resulting in the arrest of Hannah and his passengers. Shaw's basis for the stop was a law against impeding the flow of traffic.

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or compliance with law," Tennessee Code section 55-8-154 states.

A trial court decided this law did not apply to the situation at hand and threw out the evidence against Hannah and his passengers. The trial court, with the support of appellate courts, interpreted the word "impede" in the statute as coming to a stop on the road and blocking other drivers from continuing on their way. The supreme court did not buy this interpretation.

"Had the legislature intended for a violation to occur only when an automobile was completely stopped in the roadway or caused other automobiles to stop, we presume it would have said so," Chief Justice William M. Barker wrote. "Accordingly, we agree with the state that the trial court's interpretation that a driver must cause other automobiles to come to a stop and wait for an unreasonable amount of time is too restrictive and would essentially emasculate the import of the statute."

The high court found that drivers may travel slowly, but only if that slowness does not cause a backup for other motorists or violate a posted minimum speed. The court also added in a footnote that driving at the speed limit is "normal and reasonable" even when everybody else on the road is traveling much more quickly.

I saw that story and glad they're enforcing the law in Chattanooga. They sure as hell don't in Nashville, which has become a speed trap, thanks to our so-called police chief and do-nothing mayor. Meanwhile, violent crime is on the increase.

Tennessee has a minimum speed law. It's posted on most interstates, although I've noticed they're removed in Nashville--probably thanks to our sorry police chief, who has emphasized traffic stops as opposed to catching violent criminals.

[Kace]

Couldn't help but check...

Nashville's Mayor is a Democrat.

The Police Chief was appointed by the former Mayor, also a Democrat.

[The Fedora]

so what? this is not a political thread Kace, please don't make it one.

[Diplomat]

Couldn't help but check...

Nashville's Mayor is a Democrat.

The Police Chief was appointed by the former Mayor, also a Democrat.

You should do a little more checking. :)

In Nashville, mayors, vice mayors and city council members are elected on a non-partisan basis. Party affiliation is irrelevant in our city elections.

Also, the police chief's hiring has to be approved by council and civil service commission members. And he or she does not serve at the pleasure of the mayor.

Our last Mayor, Bill Purcell, did a good job. He tried to keep spending in line after his two immediate predecessors bombarded people with big property tax hikes and major building projects.

Our current Mayor has been a government lawyer his entire career. Lucky for him, his wife is very wealthy, enabling him to spend whatever it took to win.

[Kace]

Hey, I figured if I set it up, you could knock it down. :rockon:

On the other hand, people should take note of this topic whenever people accuse you of not liking any Democrats.

[Diplomat]

Hey, I figured if I set it up, you could knock it down. :rockon:

On the other hand, people should take note of this topic whenever people accuse you of not liking any Democrats.

If people accuse me of that, they don't read my posts or don't know me.

We had three good candidates for mayor in the last election. One was a former Congressman and the other was our Vice Mayor and a former Councilman--those were my preferred guys. Another was a Councilman who probably should have run for Vice Mayor--he'd have won in a walk and would be better than the one we have in that position. Any of those three would have made a good Mayor.

Our dominant daily declined to endorse the former Congressman because he spoke of the need for improving economic development--the newspaper management has demonstrated that it doesn't understand that very well. They also declined to endorse the Vice Mayor, probably because the paper has a habit of injecting race into its coverage and he has refused to do that throughout his political career. The weekly "alternative" paper also took hits at both of these gentlemen. Sadly, most of the other media in town followed their leads.

The Mayor we have now is known for his lack of personality and also his wife's wealth. He also tells everyone he is "for education" and has a lot of "meetings" about that topic but hasn't really done anything. He's too busy having meetings to do any real work, I guess.

Had there not been confusion in the city charter over mayoral term limits, Mayor Purcell would likely have run again and definitely won in a landslide.

Personally, I miss our previous police chief. He was tough on crime and tried to enhance the department's reputation in the community. He lives in the real world.

[ZuZu's Petals]

Then maybe roads shouldn't be "wide open" in the first place.



Wow. What a brilliant assertation!!!

Thank heavens then, for the floods and huge storms in Nebraska and Iowa. The interstate system was way too 'wide open'! Good thing there are trees and water blocking it.

Matt, sweetheart. Try driving for ten hours on the interstate in Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana or Colorado and see if you understand the concept of 'wide open'.

When I was finally on the east coast and drove through Massachusetts, and Virginia, I was at first befuddled as to why the Interstate speed limits were 65 instead of the 75 I'm used to. Then while manuvering down the winding roads cutting through dense trees - I came to realize that 75 would be pretty tricky.

But in the midwest... all those straight stretches where you can see 50 miles ahead of you... tooling around at 60 miles an hour is just a waste of time.

[east coast producer]

The case began when Chattanooga Police Officer Joseph Shaw noticed a slow-moving Nissan Altima on Market Street at about 1am on May 11, 2005. Shaw estimated the Altima driver was driving at 25 MPH on the four-lane road, even though the speed limit was 35 and the rest of the traffic on the road was flowing smoothly at 50 MPH. This difference in speed caused a backup, according to Officer Shaw.

"When (approaching automobiles) would come up behind us they would have to brake fairly quickly and change lanes in order to pass," Shaw testified. "And there was moderate traffic even for that time of night on that road."

But your story did not refute my point that drivers should not be expected to EXCEED posted speed limits in the interest of not impeding "traffic flow". Indeed, the police should be responsible for ensuring that "traffic flow" does NOT exceed the posted limits.

I think it did. The driver was traveling 25mph, 10 miles under the 35 limit. The cop reasoned that because everyone else was speeding -- traveling 15 over the limit at 50mph -- that the driver was impeding traffic because the speeders who approached the driver at a high-rate of speed had to slam on their brakes and swerve into another lane in order to continue speeding.

For some reason, the state supreme court agreed.

One might think that the speeders were the lawbreakers here... not only for significantly breaking the speed limit, but for aggressive/careless/reckless driving by approaching the driver at high rates of speed then slamming on their brakes. But that's just me.

The Tennessee supreme court makes absolutely no sense in that ruling, though I wonder if the court set a precedent now for drivers cited for speeding to argue they shouldn't be ticketed because they were traveling with the flow of traffic.

[east coast producer]

Spike,

Now that I think about it a little bit more... there has to be SOMETHING that set Grumpy Granny off to the extent she followed you and called the police. It doesn't seem plausible that she randomly targeted you just for kicks. Is it *possible* there's SOMETHING you might have done to set her off?

(Still, there's no way you'll be found guilty unless the Tennessee Supreme Court (http://openline.medialine.com/showthread.php?p=411919) is hearing the case.)

[Produce man]

What's wrong with going 50 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour speed limit zone?

Speed limits are MAXIMUMS, not minimums, Boo.Let me guess. You don't own a car.

Sheesh...

[ewink]

I dunno if you guys are still on the topic, but Spike I watched someone blow a red light once and t-bone another car. Both folks were claiming that they had the green, so the officer asked me to sign a complaint on the guy who actually did run the light. I never ended up being summoned to court though.

[ewink]

Spike,

Now that I think about it a little bit more... there has to be SOMETHING that set Grumpy Granny off to the extent she followed you and called the police. It doesn't seem plausible that she randomly targeted you just for kicks. Is it *possible* there's SOMETHING you might have done to set her off?
It was his 'Old People should be euthanized' bumper sticker.

[TVMattNYC]

I think it did. The driver was traveling 25mph, 10 miles under the 35 limit. The cop reasoned that because everyone else was speeding -- traveling 15 over the limit at 50mph -- that the driver was impeding traffic because the speeders who approached the driver at a high-rate of speed had to slam on their brakes and swerve into another lane in order to continue speeding.

For some reason, the state supreme court agreed.

One might think that the speeders were the lawbreakers here... not only for significantly breaking the speed limit, but for aggressive/careless/reckless driving by approaching the driver at high rates of speed then slamming on their brakes. But that's just me.

The Tennessee supreme court makes absolutely no sense in that ruling, though I wonder if the court set a precedent now for drivers cited for speeding to argue they shouldn't be ticketed because they were traveling with the flow of traffic.

Wrong.

One more time for the slow kids in the back: I'm saying no judge is going to support a ticket written by cops for people who refused TO EXCEED THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT, not tickets written for people going significantly UNDER the speed limit.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

[!]

Wrong.

One more time for the slow kids in the back: I'm saying no judge is going to support a ticket written by cops for people who refused TO EXCEED THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT, not tickets written for people going significantly UNDER the speed limit.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?Because it isn't what you originally said.

You cleverly changed what you were arguing once you were proven wrong. Luckily, everyone who reads this thread can see it for themselves.

[TVMattNYC]

Because it isn't what you originally said.

You cleverly changed what you were arguing once you were proven wrong. Luckily, everyone who reads this thread can see it for themselves.

I never changed what I said, punctuation boy.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

I suppose you could sue her for slander, defamation of character, harrassment and the accompaying emotional distress just to be a prick.

Actually that is the soft approach.
If you want to play hardball with this biitch find out if she has kids and file a child abuse complaint against her.
Don't need to give your name to do it.
That should rock her world.

Now, that isn't something I would do....I'm just saying it is a hardball option.

[Spike]

What's wrong with going 50 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour speed limit zone?

Just to be clear, I didn't say the woman doesn't have the right to go slower than the speed limit. It's inconsiderate, but it isn't illegal.

My issue is that I should not have a complaint against me for "reckless driving" for passing her. Apparently she believes that everyone should travel ten to fifteen miles under the speed limit. That's not really her decision to make.

[east coast producer]

Wrong.

One more time for the slow kids in the back: I'm saying no judge is going to support a ticket written by cops for people who refused TO EXCEED THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT, not tickets written for people going significantly UNDER the speed limit.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

Maybe breaking it down into bullet points will help.

- Driver A was choosing not to exceed the speed limit. He was traveling at 71% of the limit.
- Drivers B-Z were speeding. They were traveling 157% of the limit.
- Idiot Cop cited Driver A because he was holding up the speeders.
- Tennessee supreme court agreed with Idiot Cop

I don't know of any simpler way to explain it.

[Head Janitor]

At least it wasn't this guy making the Citizen Arrest!
http://blogs.townonline.com/watertown/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/gomer_pyle.jpg
He's such a gomer!

[neodeity]

At least it wasn't this guy making the Citizen Arrest!
http://blogs.townonline.com/watertown/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/gomer_pyle.jpg
He's such a gomer!

Thank you, I've been hearing Gomer holler, "Citizen's arrest," in my head since I first began reading this thread (I just didn't think anyone would remember the reference).

[Produce man]

If it's Gomer, then it's "citizen's uh-ray-ist!!"

[Dap]

The passing lane must be kept open and free for speeders so that the state can achieve its goal in issuing citations and collecting fines.

[TVMattNYC]

Maybe breaking it down into bullet points will help.

- Driver A was choosing not to exceed the speed limit. He was traveling at 71% of the limit.
- Drivers B-Z were speeding. They were traveling 157% of the limit.
- Idiot Cop cited Driver A because he was holding up the speeders.
- Tennessee supreme court agreed with Idiot Cop

I don't know of any simpler way to explain it.

OK, your argument breaks down right at Point A. I'm saying that no judge in America is going to back a citation written for someone who refuses to break the law by exceeding the speed limit. I'm assuming this person is GOING the speed limit, not that he's travelling significantly UNDER it. You're the one tossing in that extra variable.

[Diplomat]

We would have to know what the MINIMUM speed in that particular part of Chattanooga is before deciding if the Court is out of line.

As I see it, ticketing someone for going over the maximum speed and failure to enforce minimum speed laws is selective enforcement and police should be held accountable for their laziness. And in a fair world, police chiefs and mayors who encourage and establish speed traps would be held personally liable for behaving as common thieves and would have to make restitution from their own pockets or spend time in their own jails.

[east coast producer]

OK, your argument breaks down right at Point A. I'm saying that no judge in America is going to back a citation written for someone who refuses to break the law by exceeding the speed limit. I'm assuming this person is GOING the speed limit, not that he's travelling significantly UNDER it. You're the one tossing in that extra variable.

Oh. My bad.

Originally Posted by TVMattNYC
What's wrong with going 50 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour speed limit zone?

Speed limits are MAXIMUMS, not minimums, Boo.

I don't get why you're arguing with me when I'm agreeing with you.

[TVMattNYC]

Oh. My bad.



I don't get why you're arguing with me when I'm agreeing with you.

"Boo" is Spikey.

[Spike]

And again, the inconsiderate idiots who were driving 50 in the 65 mph zone are NOT the ones who were stopped by the cops in my situation. I was the one who was stopped, apparently for passing the inconsiderate idiots who wouldn't drive the speed limit.

[TVMattNYC]

And again, the inconsiderate idiots who were driving 50 in the 65 mph zone are NOT the ones who were stopped by the cops in my situation. I was the one who was stopped, apparently for passing the inconsiderate idiots who wouldn't drive the speed limit.

I think there's more to this story than what you're telling us, Boo.

[Another OMB]

Everyone's missing the obvious here: with the death of George Carlin, this woman had just been reminded of his observation that anyone going slower than you is an idiot and anyone going faster than you is a maniac.

Spike didn't do anything illegal. But he was BEING A MANIAC!!! He MUST be STOPPED officer!

[Spike]

I think there's more to this story than what you're telling us, Boo.

If I were someone else reading this, I would probably think so too. The ironic thing is that I have been known to drive aggressively (which isn't the same thing as reckless and which I don't actually consider a bad thing), but in this instance I was not aggressive at all. I haven't told the whole story yet because I wanted a chance to pace it out and document mile markers and city limits first, which I took a little extra time to do on my way back tonight. Here's exactly what happened:

The road in question is a four lane US highway that has a grass median between towns and a center turn lane or grass median within towns. The incident actually involves three different adjacent towns, which I'll call A, B and C.

The speed limit in the busy part of town A is 45 mph. As you approach the end of town, the speed limit increases to 55 mph, then to 65 mph only .7 mile later (I measured it tonight). It is not uncommon for people to fail to speed up, either because they missed the quick change in speed limit or because they're just stupid.

That's what happened in this instance. As I approached the end of the 55 mph zone, there were two cars in front of me, side by side, still traveling about 50 mph. I slowed to 50 mph and positioned myself behind the car in the left lane. When we entered the 65 mph zone, the left hand car slowly increased its speed and moved away from the car in the right lane. It did NOT move over to allow me to pass when it was clear to do so.

Because the left-hand car made no indication that it was going to move out of my way, I waited until there was enough room to get around it on the right, sped up to 65 mph, well past the car on the right, and moved into the right lane. A little way ahead was another car in the right lane, so when I was past the car on the left I moved back into the left lane and stayed there until I passed a large fuel truck. To summarize, I was in the left lane when I passed the first car, the right lane passing the second and the left lane passing the third car and the fuel truck, like a very leisurely slalom. Then the road ahead of me was clear.

At NO TIME did I come within a car length of any of these vehicles. Going 65 mph while they were traveling 50-55, and with the long spaces between cars, there was no need for me to cut close to anyone because I was around and through very quickly. I am not sure which of these vehicles belongs to my accuser, because I wasn't really paying attention to their make and model when I passed. I think she was the first one on the right.

Now for an important note: This all took place in the first half mile or so of the 65 mph zone, within the city limits of town A. I verified tonight that the city limit was two miles further down the road.

I passed all the way through the next town, town B, without incident.

I passed all the way through the next town, town C, without incident.

Three miles past the city limit on the other side of town C, I was pulled over by town C cops. The ticket is for traffic court in town C. The ticket claims that the alleged reckless driving took place within the city limits of town C (the "within city limits" box is checked and town C's name is written in). NONE of the events that took place happened in town C.

The total mileage from where the alleged infraction happened to where I was pulled over is twelve miles. The cop told me the woman had been following me that entire time. This is where the story makes no sense. IF I were speeding and driving recklessly for twelve miles, how the hell could she follow me twelve miles without also speeding and driving recklessly? Where's her ticket?

Here is what I believe happened: My accuser was traveling either 50 or 55 mph, depending on which car she was driving. I passed at 65 mph, at the speed limit. To someone traveling so slowly, I would look like I was moving at a good clip. Drivers in general feel a weird sort of ownership for the lane they're in and usually don't like for people to pass them. They'll often speed up to keep you from getting around. I suspect she saw the fact that I got around her so easily as a trespass on her ownership of the lane and felt that if I were traveling so much faster than felt comfortable to her, I must be going too fast and I must have cut too close. So she decided to express her indignation by calling the police.

I don't think any of this matters, though, because now that I've verified where the town limits are and that I was NOT in town C's jurisdiction when this happened, I have a strong feeling that this will be a slam dunk win for me. That is, unless the judge is crooked. Otherwise I should have no trouble taking this woman's story apart in court.

It looks like I've just landed a new job. If I do end up having to go to court over this, I'll have to take a day off work and travel about 100 miles round trip to get there and back. If that happens, and I win, I fully intend to sue her dumb ass for my lost wages and travel expenses.

[s'news]

Sue her, not the ass.

[east coast producer]

"Boo" is Spikey.

The dog barks at midnight?

[Another side]

Assuming this actually makes it in front of a judge, I'm not sure it's the slam dunk you believe it to be, particularly if you tell the story the same way you relayed it here.

You are, by your own admission, an "aggressive" driver and you see nothing wrong with that.

You were, by your own admission, weaving in and out of traffic in order to pass cars you believed were traveling too slow.

In one instance, you admit the driver in front of you picked up speed when the speed limit changed from 55 to 65 ... but he/she didn't pick it up quick enough to suit you so you changed lanes, passed that car, and then moved back in front of it.

I'm not sure about the jurisdictional issue. The events occurred on a state highway (if I remember your explanation correctly). Could it be the law is that the traffic offender on a state highway is summoned into the court represented by the arresting officer, or even the closest court to where the stop occurred and the summons issued ... when the stop is the result of (allegedly) continuing illegal conduct through more than one jurisdiction? I don't know.

The woman's own actions are irrelevant. She won't be on trial; you will be. If troopers decide to ticket a speeder on a freeway, travelling with the flow of traffic at 80 miles an hour in a 65 mph zone ... the ticket is not invalid because they didn't cite the entire line of drivers also travelling too fast.

I'm not sure about this either ... but I hazzard a guess that you have no lawsuit ... what ever is sworn to is protected in a court of law. Whether that carries over to citizens enjoying the same protections as an officer who signs the ticket, swearing to its validity, I don't know.

If the woman testifies you were speeding and swerving in and out of traffic, passing at least two cars during your maneuvers, and you agree but argue you only did so when it was safe and prudent ... then I suspect the judge will side with the woman (the jurisdictional issue still up for grabs.)

The admission the car in front of you WAS speeding up to take the advantage of the higher speed limit (and you determined it was necessary to change lanes twice to get in front of it) is a killer. To me, that's "reckless driving" particularly when you admit there were others cars and/or trucks in the other lane.

[SamG]

Assuming this actually makes it in front of a judge, I'm not sure it's the slam dunk you believe it to be, particularly if you tell the story the same way you relayed it here.

You are, by your own admission, an "aggressive" driver and you see nothing wrong with that.

You were, by your own admission, weaving in and out of traffic in order to pass cars you believed were traveling too slow.

In one instance, you admit the driver in front of you picked up speed when the speed limit changed from 55 to 65 ... but he/she didn't pick it up quick enough to suit you so you changed lanes, passed that car, and then moved back in front of it.
Assuming Spike is telling the truth (and can get the judge to believe so), it is a slam dunk. Your reading comprehension is off. If he is doing the speed limit, and three other cars are doing five (to say nothing of 10) mph under, there's nothing keeping him from switching lanes (provided it is safe to do so). Again taking Spike at his word, he didn't cut anyone off. Now granted, the other drivers may not see it the same way, but you're back to a "he said/she said" issue.

[!]

IfThe ironic thing is that I have been known to drive aggressively (which isn't the same thing as reckless and which I don't actually consider a bad thing),
No, but in lots of states, the law does, and you can be cited for it.

Don't admit this in court or your credibility goes down the drain.

Anoher Side's post is right; you're going to look very shaky (but not necessarily blue) as it is with the defense you're proposing. Especially the, "Well, she was reckless, too!" argument--which, while it may be accurate, will do nothing to get you out of your ticket.

This all probably doesn't matter--she's not going to show up in court, anyway.

[mothball]

Bullsh!t.

No judge in America is going to back a cop writing a ticket for people who AREN'T breaking the law.

Actually, my father in law got one about a month ago for doing 25 in a 40 (he was trying to find the place where he could turn in to the lumber yard). Got thrown out in court, though.

[Spike]

Especially the, "Well, she was reckless, too!" argument--which, while it may be accurate, will do nothing to get you out of your ticket.

I don't know where you got that. I didn't say she was reckless. I said she was driving too slowly, so I went around her. She and the other drivers were all driving at least ten miles per hour under the speed limit when I passed them. That is relevant because I did not have to break the law to get around them and did not do so. The law in my state says that it is legal to pass on the right if the car being overtaken is traveling under the speed limit.

If this goes to trial, my defense is that I did not break the law, and that the woman is mistaken.

[Spike]

A few more things to add:

You are, by your own admission, an "aggressive" driver and you see nothing wrong with that.

No, I am not an aggressive driver. I said that I have been known to be aggressive in certain situations. That does not make me an aggressive driver. Does the fact that you sometimes say stupid things make you stupid?

You were, by your own admission, weaving in and out of traffic in order to pass cars you believed were traveling too slow.

I was not weaving in and out of traffic. I made two lane changes. Lane changes to not constitute "weaving." I made them with plenty of room and within the speed limit.

One thing I also neglected to mention is that I signaled both lane changes. It's a habit for me to signal when I change lanes, even when nobody is around. Way back when I was a teenager a cop gave me a ticket for failing to signal a right turn, and the overuse of my blinkers kind of stuck.

In one instance, you admit the driver in front of you picked up speed when the speed limit changed from 55 to 65 ... but he/she didn't pick it up quick enough to suit you so you changed lanes, passed that car, and then moved back in front of it.

To clarify this point: Initially both cars were traveling 50 mph. As we moved into the 65 mph zone, the car on the left sped up to about 55 mph and held its speed. The gas truck up ahead and the car behind it were also traveling about 55 mph. Since the car in the left lane was not accelerating to overtake the next two cars, I waited for that car to move into the right lane behind them. It didn't, so I passed it on the right with plenty of room and without having to exceed the speed limit.

How do I know these speeds? When I entered the 55 mph zone I set my cruise control on 55 mph. I had to take it off cruise when I encountered the two cars traveling 50 mph and match their speed. From that point I was constantly monitoring my own speed in order to make the decision whether to pass.

I'm not sure about the jurisdictional issue. The events occurred on a state highway (if I remember your explanation correctly). Could it be the law is that the traffic offender on a state highway is summoned into the court represented by the arresting officer, or even the closest court to where the stop occurred and the summons issued ... when the stop is the result of (allegedly) continuing illegal conduct through more than one jurisdiction? I don't know.

I have been scouring the state code looking for just such a law, and I can't find one. I did find a paragraph on jurisdiction which says that municipal courts have jurisdiction over infractions committed within their city limits or statutory jurisdiction. Since town A and town C both have their own police forces and their own court systems, I cannot imagine that town C's jurisdiction covers town A.

I have an email in to a lawyer to see if I can get some answers on this.

The woman's own actions are irrelevant.

Her actions are definitely relevant, particularly her speed. She claimed that I was speeding when I passed her. Unless she had radar, the only way she could know I was speeding is if she were traveling the speed limit herself. Since she was traveling 10 to 15 mph under the speed limit, there's no way she could be sure I exceeded 65 mph.

I can't know her motivations and probably wouldn't try to speculate on them in court. I don't think I'll need to do so. I only mentioned above what I think happened because there's invariably someone who thinks everyone in the world has good intentions and says, "What would be her motivation to lie?"

If troopers decide to ticket a speeder on a freeway, travelling with the flow of traffic at 80 miles an hour in a 65 mph zone ... the ticket is not invalid because they didn't cite the entire line of drivers also travelling too fast.

I didn't mention anything at all about selective enforcement. I did not break the law. Period. Selective enforcement isn't even an issue when you didn't break the law in the first place.

[Diplomat]

I don't know where you got that. I didn't say she was reckless. I said she was driving too slowly, so I went around her. She and the other drivers were all driving at least ten miles per hour under the speed limit when I passed them. That is relevant because I did not have to break the law to get around them and did not do so. The law in my state says that it is legal to pass on the right if the car being overtaken is traveling under the speed limit.

If this goes to trial, my defense is that I did not break the law, and that the woman is mistaken.

I assume you will do this, but it's a good idea to have a copy of that law handy when you go to court. It's possible a judge might not be aware of it.

[Another side]

You missed the point both ! and I were trying to make:

Our comment about the woman's driving was related to your question of "How could she know how fast I was going unless she was following me ... where's HER ticket," or words to that affect.

Anyway, good luck if you have to go to court.

[Spike]

You missed the point both ! and I were trying to make:

Our comment about the woman's driving was related to your question of "How could she know how fast I was going unless she was following me ... where's HER ticket," or words to that affect.

Oh, I see. I didn't say that to the cops, and I wouldn't say it in court. That was me venting on an internet message board.

My main point in saying that was that here's this woman who claims to be a good driver and claims to have been victimized by me and to have witnessed me victimizing other innocent drivers, yet she also says she followed me for twelve miles. It's not that I think her behavior would excuse mine (if I had done anything). It's that her story doesn't ring true when you realize that she would have had to have been doing exactly the same kind of driving to be able to have seen all this. If I were really speeding and weaving through traffic, how could such a conscientious driver possibly keep up with me for twelve miles, through three towns?

[Mom]

I remember seeing a study somewhere that suggested that men who drive at or above the speed limit consistently and who weave in and out of traffic because they don't want to be held up by a slower driver are compensating for having a small penis.

[Another side]

And ... we're OFF!

[Pro]

I remember seeing a study somewhere that suggested that men who drive at or above the speed limit consistently and who weave in and out of traffic because they don't want to be held up by a slower driver are compensating for having a small penis.

And those that don't, don't care? ;)

[Zero]

Something weird happened to me tonight.

Dude, you deserved it. You were speeding and driving so badly that you scared someone enough to make them want you arrested and ticketed for your behavior.

It should stand up in court, if the judge believes the woman. She is a witness and has no reason to lie or single you out for prosecution. We've seen how much you lie on an anonymous internet board. I would think it's carry over from your real life trials and tribulations.

You are toast. Pay the ticket, and watch your driving, sir speedy.

[TVMattNYC]

Actually, my father in law got one about a month ago for doing 25 in a 40 (he was trying to find the place where he could turn in to the lumber yard). Got thrown out in court, though.

OK ... for the 19th time ... I'm not talking about people going significantly UNDER the speed limit.

NO

JUDGE

WILL

BACK

A

TICKET

FOR

SOMEONE

WHO

REFUSED

TO

BREAK

THE

LAW

BY

EXCEEDING

THE

SPEED

LIMIT.

[Spike]

I'm not talking about people going significantly UNDER the speed limit.


Yeah, but everybody else is.

[Speed Racer]

Leave the driving to me next time Spike. You can be my Chim Chim.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

watch your driving, sir speedy.

Some people can't resist dropping little clever clues can they?
You think you are too smart for the room.
Some of us know what you are referencing, Zero.
Your alter ego.
Just thought you could slip that in to see if anyone was paying attention, huh?

And back to you Spike, I am worn slick reading all these details and debate.
Judas Priest man, the entire incident took less time than it did to read this thread.
Good luck and I wish you justice...whatever that is in this case.

And Matt, you must drive like my 85-year old mother.

[Spike]

And Matt, you must drive like my 85-year old mother.

I still don't believe Matt drives. I believe he just has a car, a status symbol to which he refers in conversation to let other New Yorkers know how big time he is. It's nothing but an expensive accessory.

[mothball]

OK ... for the 19th time ... I'm not talking about people going significantly UNDER the speed limit.

NO

JUDGE

WILL

BACK

A

TICKET

FOR

SOMEONE

WHO

REFUSED

TO

BREAK

THE

LAW

BY

EXCEEDING

THE

SPEED

LIMIT.

I wasn't contradicting you. Just pointing out that the cops in my FIL's town are idiots.

[!]

Her actions are definitely relevant, particularly her speed. She claimed that I was speeding when I passed her. Unless she had radar, the only way she could know I was speeding is if she were traveling the speed limit herself.
Right.

If she was traveling at the speed limit, 55, and you passed her, you would have to be driving faster than the speed limit to do so.

If she claims she was, you're going to have to prove she wasn't.

Look, I think, if she shows up, you're going to have a tough time with this, simply because of your attitude. If you act in real life at all like you act here, you will come across as an agressive individual who would have no trouble doing what this woman suggests you did.

Since the judge will have to judge her word vs. yours, you could very well end up being your own worst enemy.

[The Fedora]

but the speed limit was actually 65 where he passed her.

[!]

but the speed limit was actually 65 where he passed her.

My mistake; she can claim she was traveling at the limit, whatever it was.

[Lazlo Toth]

OK ... for the 19th time ... I'm not talking about people going significantly UNDER the speed limit.

NO

JUDGE

WILL

BACK

A

TICKET

FOR

SOMEONE

WHO

REFUSED

TO

BREAK

THE

LAW

BY

EXCEEDING

THE

SPEED

LIMIT.

In California, you would be wrong. Here is Vehicle Code Section 21654

Slow-Moving Vehicles

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, (emphasis added) any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.
(c) The Department of Transportation, with respect to state highways, and local authorities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may place and maintain upon highways official signs directing slow-moving traffic to use the right-hand traffic lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or preparing for a left turn.

[Clever Login Name]

Now that I think of it, try doing 50 or 55 on the Capital Beltway. You get get shot, especially if you are in the left lane just trying to make a point.



Have you driven on the Beltway recently? 50 to 55 would be great ... usually it's closer to 5-10 mph.

[TVMattNYC]

In California, you would be wrong. Here is Vehicle Code Section 21654

Slow-Moving Vehicles

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits,

That phrase basically means that everything following it in that paragraph applies UNLESS the "slow moving traffic" is actually going the speed limit.

[The Fedora]

ha ha ha... well yeah during, or even near, rush hours...

any other time of day or night it's like the Dover Raceway...

[Lazlo Toth]

That phrase basically means that everything following it in that paragraph applies UNLESS the "slow moving traffic" is actually going the speed limit.

Well, I can help you with your ignorance, but I can't help you with your stubborn ignorance.

What it basically says is driving at the speed limit does not protect you from a citation and conviction for impeding traffic. That's how the CHP enforces it. That's how the judges view it. And a lot of folks in California have found it out, some to their surprise.

[TVMattNYC]

In California, you would be wrong. Here is Vehicle Code Section 21654

Slow-Moving Vehicles

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, (emphasis added) any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.
(c) The Department of Transportation, with respect to state highways, and local authorities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may place and maintain upon highways official signs directing slow-moving traffic to use the right-hand traffic lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or preparing for a left turn.

Well, I can help you with your ignorance, but I can't help you with your stubborn ignorance.

What it basically says is driving at the speed limit does not protect you from a citation and conviction for impeding traffic. That's how the CHP enforces it. That's how the judges view it. And a lot of folks in California have found it out, some to their surprise.

Sorry.

Not buying it.

[Lazlo Toth]

Sorry.

Not buying it.

As Pro would say, of course you don't.

[Lazlo Toth]

And apparently it's also true in the state of Washington:


http://www.komonews.com/news/20656789.html
Poking along in the left lane? Prepare to pay




YouNewsTV™ (http://www.komonews.com/r?19=950&32=3291&7=134691&40=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.komonews.com%2Fyounews%3Fform% 3Dpost&41=You+News+Post+-+KOMO+News+-+Poking+along+in+the+left+lane%3F+Prepare+to+pay&18=0.1018819238981975)

Story Published: Jun 23, 2008 at 8:58 AM PDT
Story Updated: Jun 23, 2008 at 1:07 PM PDT

By Jenni Hogan (http://www.komonews.com/news/mailto:jhogan@komotv.com)

Watch the story (javascript:openPopup('%2Fr%3F19%3D950%2632%3D3291 %267%3D134691%2640%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.komone ws.com%252Fnews%252F20656789.html%253Fvideo%253DYH I%2526t%253Da%2641%3DVideo%2BPoking%2Balong%2Bin%2 Bthe%2Bleft%2Blane%253F%2BPrepare%2Bto%2Bpay%2618% 3D0.781192850603153','video','scrollbars=yes,width =800,height=630,screenx=15,screeny=15');)
SEATTLE -- Even if you're going the speed limit it might not be enough to prevent you from getting a ticket if you're holding up traffic in the fast lane.

State troopers are on a mission to make sure the left lane on area freeways is used for its intended purpose: passing.

"We're doing 58, 59 miles an hour and they are just sitting there, traffic's passing them on the right hand side," Trooper Keith Leary said while pointing out a car in the left lane of Interstate 5. "That's exactly what we don't want to see happen."

The driver, Brasta Bonifcho, said he was surprised what he was doing was illegal.

"I didn't know that, I really didn't know that," he said. "I am guilty, no question about it."

Leary reminded Bonifcho that drivers need to stay in the right lanes unless they're passing another vehicle.

Everyone pulled over during Leary's patrol said they thought it wasn't a problem as long as they were going the speed limit. But the law says otherwise.

"It is a traffic infraction to drive continuously in the left lane of a multilane roadway when it impedes the flow of other traffic," the statute reads (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.100).

The reason for the law is to help keep traffic moving and to diffuse potential road rage situations.

"It just takes one thing to set them off," Leary said of frustrated drivers stuck behind slower moving vehicles. "If we can alleviate one of those things, maybe we can avoid an assault."

The State Patrol said several recent collisions caused by slow vehicles in the passing lane have prompted increased enforcement of the law along area interstates.

Drivers in the HOV lanes are exempt from the rule, but anyone else could be facing a $124 ticket.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

There is a reason why the inside lane is called the passing lane.

It isn't for slow pokes to camp out in and ball up traffic.
The law and custom dictate that people pass on the left.
When faster drivers have to pass on the right to simply go the speed limit it creates a hazardous situation.
The orderly flow of traffic is altered.
If you can't handle that simple concept you just need to go back to driving school.

And the operating speed in some large western cities can be 80mph.
Very few people drive the speed limit.
But, some of you couldn't handle that.
That is obvious.

[TVMattNYC]

When faster drivers have to pass on the right to simply go the speed limit it creates a hazardous situation.


Agreed.

And the biggest hazards on the road are drivers exceeding the speed limit.

[Mr. Rugen]

I don't like people that speed and I also don't like people who try to slow traffic down.
I have nothing else to add.

[SamG]

When faster drivers have to pass on the right to simply go the speed limit it creates a hazardous situation.
Let's be honest Ralphie... you aren't passing someone simply to go the speed limit. You're passing someone to go faster than the speed limit.

You are correct, the left lane isn't for people poking along. However, when I'm doing my normal 7-9 mph OVER the speed limit, and someone is only doing 5mph OVER the limit in the right lane, I have the right to move into the left lane to pass them. Just because you come flying up behind me going 20mph doesn't give you the right to tailgate, flash your headlights, or whatever you do when someone isn't going fast enough for you.

[TVMattNYC]

Let's be honest Ralphie... you aren't passing someone simply to go the speed limit. You're passing someone to go faster than the speed limit.

You are correct, the left lane isn't for people poking along. However, when I'm doing my normal 7-9 mph OVER the speed limit, and someone is only doing 5mph OVER the limit in the right lane, I have the right to move into the left lane to pass them. Just because you come flying up behind me going 20mph doesn't give you the right to tailgate, flash your headlights, or whatever you do when someone isn't going fast enough for you.

All the more reason why cops should be targeting SPEEDERS, not people who are obeying the speed limits.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Let's be honest Ralphie... you aren't passing someone simply to go the speed limit. You're passing someone to go faster than the speed limit.

You are correct, the left lane isn't for people poking along. However, when I'm doing my normal 7-9 mph OVER the speed limit, and someone is only doing 5mph OVER the limit in the right lane, I have the right to move into the left lane to pass them. Just because you come flying up behind me going 20mph doesn't give you the right to tailgate, flash your headlights, or whatever you do when someone isn't going fast enough for you.

I'm fine with all that.
And if someone does start flashing lights it usually causes the slower person to not pull over.
This isn't the Autobahn.

[TAFKA wacowx]

Agreed.

And the biggest hazards on the road are drivers exceeding the speed limit.

Actually the biggest hazards are those going above AND below the speed limit. Variance in speed is what causes accidents. If everyone magically would drive the same speed (not going to happen of course) we would not have many accidents at all.

As for me, I am not for lowering the speed limit. I am for driving the speed limit however. You folks who are driving 7-9 mph over the speed limit are costing yourselves a minimum of $50 each month in extra gas. I know, I lowered my own speed by similar amounts about 3 or 4 months ago and I find I fill up one less time per month. My 35 minute commute is now a 37 minute commute. I don't really miss those extra 4 minutes a day, but I was missing that extra $50 a month! Mind you, I get pretty good mileage (nearly 30 mpg) anyone with lower mpg or anyone who has to use premium will easily see a much more 'lucrative return on the investment'.

55 mph speed limits were put in place because there was a gas shortage in the 70s...there was an oil embargo to the US from the Middle East. There is no such shortage today so it is doubtful we will see any lowering of the speed limit anytime soon. But, it would behoove us all to drive a little slower each day. :thumbsup:

And YES in every state I have driven it, it IS illegal to travel in the left or passing lane...no matter what your speed. Sustained use of the passing lane for plain ole travel will get you pulled over. I HATE that...many times I have followed behind someone in the passing lane for about a mile or so before giving up and eventually passing them on the right.

[!]

Sorry.

Not buying it.No, of course not, because in your insular little world, things don't work that way.

[Diplomat]

All the more reason why cops should be targeting SPEEDERS, not people who are obeying the speed limits.

Police should also enforce MINIMUM speed laws which are on the books in many states and municipalities. If they'd do that, others might be more apt to follow MAXIMUM speed laws.

[Produce man]

"You folks who are driving 7-9 mph over the speed limit are costing yourselves a minimum of $50 each month in extra gas."

Not everyone. I got a custom tune for my Mustang GT recently, and got 30 more horsepower, more torque, harder shift points AND about 5-6 mpg better on the highway.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

All the more reason why cops should be targeting SPEEDERS, not people who are obeying the speed limits.

Oh really, Einstein? What about the cell phone asshats? They are far more dangerous...and annoying.

[Produce man]

Apparently, the special ed kids don't get a summer break. Mighty Dickless is right on time.

[News Is Broken]

Getting back to the original post, civil traffic violations are not like criminal violations. A criminal violation means that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. However, you can be convicted of a traffic violation by a preponderance of the evidence, which is why if a cop says you were speeding, then (unless you can refute that testimony) you were speeding in the eyes of the court. In your case, you were passing vehicles and changing lanes and this woman believed you were going to hit her car and others. She doesn't have to prove it, merely being willing to attest to this under oath is enough. Your only course of action then is to refute that testimony and get her to contradict herself. The fact that she gave chase should serve well there - she also drove "recklessly" to follow you, by her own admission.

Best advice I can give is if it goes to court, bring an attorney. A good attorney should be able to rattle old blue hair into tripping herself up on the stand and then the rest will take care of itself. Reckless driving isn't like going 10 over. It carries some pretty stiff fines and could result in a license suspension, plus your insurance will go thru the roof - you definitely do NOT want ANY of that.

[TVMattNYC]

Oh really, Einstein? What about the cell phone asshats? They are far more dangerous...and annoying.

On this we agree, Funny Boy.

[TAFKA wacowx]

"You folks who are driving 7-9 mph over the speed limit are costing yourselves a minimum of $50 each month in extra gas."

Not everyone. I got a custom tune for my Mustang GT recently, and got 30 more horsepower, more torque, harder shift points AND about 5-6 mpg better on the highway.

Drop down 7-9 mph and I guarantee you will get at least another 5 mpg.

[rootboyslim]

Yo Spike---did said idiot sign the report?

[Zero]

In your case, you were passing vehicles and changing lanes and this woman believed you were going to hit her car and others. She doesn't have to prove it, merely being willing to attest to this under oath is enough.

That's what I told him. But he won't listen. If in real life he's anything like appears to be on this board, he's a hard headed bastard. And in this case, he's toast.

Be sure to let us know what happens Spike, and try to tell the truth.

[Spike]

Yo Spike---did said idiot sign the report?

The officer said that he told her to sign the complaint on Wednesday, and for me to check with the magistrate on Friday to allow them time to get it into the system.

I did a little snooping and found out that the woman lives in the town where the cops responded, so she might just show up to sign the complaint after all. If she does, I'm going to put in for a change of venue to my home town, 50 miles away, on the grounds that it will pose a hardship for a poor student to travel all that way to go to court. Apparently that works sometimes. If she wants to accuse me, she should have to be the one to make the trip to do it.

[Marty McFly]

After reading this story, I admit I hate that self-righteous whore.

[TVMattNYC]

After reading this story, I admit I hate that self-righteous whore.

Who ... Boo?

[Zero]

I'm going to put in for a change of venue to my home town, 50 miles away, on the grounds that it will pose a hardship for a poor student to travel all that way to go to court.
Yeah, good luck with that. Best of luck in convincing the court that 50 miles constitutes a hardship. What did you plan to do? Walk the entire way barefooted over broken glass? You don't have a prayer.

You don't want to go to court, hotshot? Pay the fine. You know that you're guilty anyway.

Spike, who mistakenly believes himself to be an expert on the law and it's consequences, caught breaking the law by a little old lady. And he's gonna fight it. And he's gonna lose. How cool is this?

I feel like I've been given a very special gift.

[!]

Spike, who mistakenly believes himself to be an expert on the law and it's consequences
You, of course, have exactly the same problem.

[neodeity]

Zorie, why do you have a problem with this.
They're lanes; they were made for changing.

[Zero]

Look, I think, if she shows up, you're going to have a tough time with this, simply because of your attitude. If you act in real life at all like you act here, you will come across as an agressive individual who would have no trouble doing what this woman suggests you did.
I say take it to the People's Court so we can all watch, and laugh.

Spike's post is so typical of everything he posts on Medialine. He actually thinks he's right about everything and gives no quarter.

But he's so often wrong and so easy to disprove. Even a lowly traffic court prosecutor and a little old lady will have no trouble at all nailing this joker to the wall. I don't know which would be better, if Spike had to pay for an attorney to defend his case, AND LOSE, or if he arrogantly tried to represent himself, and made a mockery of himself.

I'm torn.

[Zero]

You, of course, have exactly the same problem.
I don't think so. When have I ever been wrong?

[!]

I don't think so. When have I ever been wrong?

Many times. Just because you refuse to admit your errors, that doesn't make them nonexistent.

[!]

Spike's post is so typical of everything he posts on Medialine. He actually thinks he's right about everything and gives no quarter.
You could be looking in a mirror and writing about yourself.

[Zero]

Many times.
Let me think... nah. Can't think of any specifics. Can you?
I do know that I've often stood firmly on very firm ground. Is that to what you're mistakenly referring?

[Zero]

You could be looking in a mirror and writing about yourself.

Now that would be interesting, and entertaining. And for you especially, enlightening.

[Produce man]

I'm torn.Natalie Imbruglia thanks you...

[!]

Let me think... nah. Can't think of any specifics. Can you?
Well, there was your impassioned defense of the KDUH tape erasers, for one.

[Zero]

Don't remember that one.

[Spike]

I don't think so. When have I ever been wrong?

How about a few posts back:

You don't want to go to court, hotshot? Pay the fine.

It's a reckless driving charge. I can't just pay the fine to avoid court. If she swears to the complaint, a court appearance is REQUIRED, whether I plead guilty or not.

But I'm not surprised that you would pretend to be an expert on the matter without having any clue what you're talking about.

[imported_Baby Cakes]

Maybe he was setting you up?

[!]

Don't remember that one.Of course not.

I'm waiting for you to screw up and log on this board as Speed Racer by accident, just like you did as Paper Trail a few days ago.

[Spike]

Natalie Imbruglia thanks you...

She should be thanking Ednaswap. Her version sucked ass.

[s'news]

I could be wrong, but I doubt you'll get a change of venue on this.

[Lazlo Toth]

Do what Hans Reiser did. Show them where the body is in exchange for a reduced sentence.

[The Mockingbird]

Say that all you want, but I've seen it done.
It is possible to drive unsafely without violating a specific law.

Then there's this, from an AOL news story:
"In some states, including California, a dawdling motorist can be cited for driving too slowly. Police Officer Pete Kim of the California Highway Patrol says that while it's not common, you could get a ticket if, 'you're blocking traffic or creating a road hazard on the freeway.' He mentions a couple reasons why someone would drive that slowly. The car could be suffering engine trouble or the driver could be impaired, for example. Both will likely attract the attention of a police officer."

from KOMO:
"SEATTLE -- Even if you're going the speed limit it might not be enough to prevent you from getting a ticket if you're holding up traffic in the fast lane.

State troopers are on a mission to make sure the left lane on area freeways is used for its intended purpose: passing.

'We're doing 58, 59 miles an hour and they are just sitting there, traffic's passing them on the right hand side," Trooper Keith Leary said while pointing out a car in the left lane of Interstate 5. "That's exactly what we don't want to see happen.'"

A clip from DC:

"The trooper asked Conrad why he was driving 50 mph. Conrad said he was saving gas.

The trooper, however, was more concerned with motorist safety and issued Conrad a warning for driving 15 mph under the posted speed limit."

There are a lot more of these examples available.

Where in DC is it even possible to drive 50mph?

[TAFKA wacowx]

Discovered yesterday that Texas law allows you to drive 10 mph under the posted speed limit as long as you are in the rightmost lane. Below that or in the passing lane(s) and you are considered a hazard to the other drivers.

[Zero]

I could be wrong, but I doubt you'll get a change of venue on this.

Of course he won't. And Perry Mason here won't even try. Once he finds out that a change of venue is a legal motion, with required legal reasoning, he'll drop the idea as just another foolish thought he's had along these lines.

And you can bet your life that we will never hear about it when he drops the whole fantastic idea of going to court altogether, agreeing instead to plead guilty to speeding and justifying it to himself with something along the lines of; "oh, I could have won in court, but I didn't want to go through all the hassles".

He has a loser case on his hands. Anyone can see this. Anyone except for Spike.

[Zero]

It's a reckless driving charge. I can't just pay the fine to avoid court. If she swears to the complaint, a court appearance is REQUIRED, whether I plead guilty or not.

Two words: plea agreement.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

He has a loser case on his hands. Anyone can see this.


Is it as much a "loser case" as the idiot KDUH employees erasing tapes?
Tell us.
Tell us.

[Zero]

I have no idea what you're talking about. And when dealing with you, that's both common, and a blessing.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, sure.
You are as ham-handed as they come

[!]

I have no idea what you're talking about.Finally, you admit the truth: you're ignorant.

[Zero]

No, it's pretty obvious that you're mistaken and fail to see it.
Definitely a pattern with you two.

[rootboyslim]

Spike---what is the latest?

[Spike]

Spike---what is the latest?

The officer said he would turn the ticket in on July 7. He didn't, so the woman couldn't swear to it. The court clerk said to call back after the 15th. It still hadn't been turned in. The court clerk said to call back on the 21st, which is tomorrow.

I have retained a lawyer. The lawyer said he's never heard of anything quite like this, so he's not really sure what kind of case I have. As of now, there's no case to have, because I still don't have an actual charge against me.

Otherwise I'm just in a holding pattern. Nobody seems to know what happens if the cop never turns in the ticket. State law says that once a cop swears to a ticket, he has to turn it in. State law doesn't appear to address this situation, where the cop didn't actually swear to the ticket. State law leaves it up to the local jurisdictions to determine how they implement controls over ticket numbers and missing or voided tickets.

State law doesn't address a lot of this. The traffic code says nothing about citizen complaints. Citizen complaints are addressed in the criminal code, but always in the context of felonies. I am wondering whether the cop didn't have the authority to write that ticket in the first place, but the code doesn't specifically say that, either.

My lawyer comes highly recommended and knows the judge involved. If anything does come of it, I have confidence he'll take care of it.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Thanks for the update, Boo.

In my experience, most cops are idiots. I've gotten out of several speeding tickets because the cop never showed up in court. Your ticket is probably floating around in his trunk somewhere under a Dunkin Donuts box.

[Spike]

Today was my court date, so now's a good time for an update.

The cop finally turned the ticket in this past Friday afternoon, five full weeks after he wrote it. It now shows up in their system. However, the crazy woman still hasn't sworn to it, so there's still not currently a valid charge against me. My lawyer intended to go into court today and move for dismissal for failure to prosecute; but since there wasn't actually a charge against me, my case wasn't put on the docket and wasn't called.

So now the whole thing is in a weird sort of limbo. It can't be dismissed until there's actually a charge and it's put on the docket. It normally wouldn't be put on the docket unless the woman were to swear to it. If she doesn't swear to it, it apparently just hovers there indefinitely, where I can't get it dismissed and obtain any peace of mind.

A magistrate told me several weeks ago that if today came and went without the charge being sworn, it would automatically be dismissed. Another magistrate told me that if the woman didn't show up to sign for it within 48 hours of the ticket being turned in by the cop, it would automatically be dismissed. Now my lawyer says that neither of those statements is true, that there are no set time limits on it.

He knows the chief clerk of court and the judge and is trying to get it dismissed once and for all. It turns out that the chief clerk also knows my accuser. She apparently has a reputation within the city as a nut, and they aren't very enthusiastic about helping her prosecute me.

Here I was hoping today would see it resolved, but I get to wait some more.

[News Is Broken]

It turns out that the chief clerk also knows my accuser. She apparently has a reputation within the city as a nut, and they aren't very enthusiastic about helping her prosecute me.

Well since you've got the attorney handy, I'd ask about filing a class action lawsuit against Miss Loopy on behalf of all the people she's harrassed. Imagine if she had to pay ALL of their court costs, lost wages, mileage to and from court on numerous occasions, etc, etc, etc.

Probably not possible, but come on you gotta admit that would RULE. :rockon:

[Brain Cramp]

Helloooooo - your lawyer tells you it may never go away which means said lawyer is on retainer with you indefinitely as well ... You're not an itsy bitsy tiny bit skeptical of your attorney's great wisdom on this matter? Color me cynical if you wish but c'mon!

[Spike]

Helloooooo - your lawyer tells you it may never go away which means said lawyer is on retainer with you indefinitely as well ... You're not an itsy bitsy tiny bit skeptical of your attorney's great wisdom on this matter? Color me cynical if you wish but c'mon!

Nah, I'm not worried about it. He's charging by the hour. If it just sits there and nothing else happens with it, there's nothing for him to do, and he doesn't get any more money out of it. It's in his best interest to go ahead and push for a conclusion (in the form of a dismissal), as he is now. Since I want a conclusion, our interests coincide.

Also, we found him through a referral from another attorney we trust. He wasn't just the first name in the phone book.

[TVMattNYC]

Hopefully, Boo, this whole experience -- whether you win or lose -- will give you pause the next time you consider driving recklessly.

[News Is Broken]

Hopefully, Boo, this whole experience -- whether you win or lose -- will give you pause the next time you consider driving recklessly.

Hey Matt how's the weather up there in that big shiny ivory tower of yours? And my, what a high horse you have too...

[TVMattNYC]

Hey Matt how's the weather up there in that big shiny ivory tower of yours? And my, what a high horse you have too...

The weather is always crystal-clear up here. And the tower is made of platinum, btw, not ivory.

You're welcome.

[s'news]

The plus here is that a fine made-for-TV movie will be made about this.