Speeding on I93 Near Boston?

I was driving with the flow of traffic and clearly saw the police officer on a portion of highway that was 65mph. I gradually approached the police officer's car at my legal speed. The police officer slowed down, swung behind me and pulled me over within about 30 seconds as we apparently had entered a reduced speed zone of 55 mph. He cited me for going 72, which was not the case and checked off that he estimated the speed and clocked it. How could he check off both of these? The highway we were driving on is known for the high speeds of drivers and to drive 65 is actually on the slow side of things. I understand this is no defense but it is common sense for the area. Should I challenge this? The ticket is $170 for a speed I wasn't even driving and not to mention my insurance. Any ideas on defense?

more info

Massachusetts

One more thing. When I came up alongside the cop He immediately slowed down and pulled me over. He may have looked at his spedometer before slowing down and then pulled me over at his then faster speed. That is the only way I can understand him saying 72 unless the radar gun was off, if you can even use a radar gun while driving alongside another car. I'd appreciate any advice. Thanks.

I93

Fight it, you will very likely get it reduce to the minimum fine. If the magistrate finds you responsible and you appeal in court the Officer must show up or you will be found not responsible. Again there is a good likelyhood of getting the fien reduced to the minimum. If you have to pay the fine pay by check made out for one dollar more than the fine. This seems to hang things up somehow and keeps the offense off your insurance.

krecpa31 said:

Fight it, you will very likely get it reduce to the minimum fine. If the magistrate finds you responsible and you appeal in court the Officer must show up or you will be found not responsible. Again there is a good likelyhood of getting the fien reduced to the minimum. If you have to pay the fine pay by check made out for one dollar more than the fine. This seems to hang things up somehow and keeps the offense off your insurance.

Click to expand...

Normally, I could not care less when people say stupid things, yet this old "pay $1 more than the fine" idea just gets my goat.

In a nutshell, it's BS. (Like much of the rest of this guy's post). Feel free to take his advice, but you've been warned.

My reply is based on personal experience. I have contested several (5 or 6)speeding tickets which were written for more than the minimum amount and 100% of time the fine was either waived (I was found "not responsible") or reduced to the minimum. The last time I contested one was May 2001. I got the fine reduced to the minimum and paid $1.00 more. As of this writing there has been no insurance surcharge to me. That is why I said it "seems" to work. It cost me only $1.00 to test out the theory.

My post reflects my own experience and is 100% accurate as to my own experience.

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that a lot of people end up with the minimum fine when they "fight" their tickets? In fact, in some jurisdictions, you don't even need to "fight" - you just plea it out before the hearing. It doesn't mean your keen legal insight had anything to do with though - that's just the procedure some places (usually high volume areas).

Anyway, suggesting he fight was the only redeeming part of your advice. The remainder is the tripe I was referring to.

For example, since my experience isn't to be believed,
http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/ticket.asp

I won't even get into what an officer "must" do, but suffice it to say, you clearly have no clue.

You do not seem to understand english. I never said that there was any magic to it. If you get a ticket in Massachusetts for more thant the minimum, and you do not have any conduit to get the amount changed besides contesting it, it appears to be worth you while to contest it. How can you read anything more into that? No one said you had to have any type of "legal mind" to contest a ticket.

As to the remainder I relayed my personal experience, again I am not saying anthing more than what I did and what the result was as of this date.

If you read the actual words I use and understand the definition of those words you can understand what I am saying.

krecpa31 said:

You do not seem to understand english. I

As to the remainder I relayed my personal experience, again I am not saying anthing more than what I did and what the result was as of this date.

If you read the actual words I use and understand the definition of those words you can understand what I am saying.

Click to expand...

**A: then what do you mean by .."again, I am not saying anthing more......"

HomeGuru said:

**A: then what do you mean by .."again, I am not saying anthing more......"

Click to expand...

I'd explain it, but as you've been told, I don't undersatnd English. Although what's even more interesting to me despite how I'm the one who doesn't understand English, our intrepid, ticket-fighting dissenter is the one who is mad at me because I actually had the temerity to agree with his one, (minor) valid point about contesting a ticket to reduce the fine.


I suppose I should count my lucky stars I held my tongue and didn't tell him that someone with 5-6 speeding tickets needs to have their license revoked, since they obviously didn't learn their lesson the first 3-4 times, eh?

In Massachusetts you have your license suspended if yuo are guilty of 3 moving violations within a year. My 5 to 6 are spread out over 26 years.