help with understanding speeding ticket

My boyfriend recently got a speeding ticket in Missouri while taking me to the doctor. I'm nine months pregnant, so he wanted me to pretend like I was in labor. I didn't think I could do it, and be realistic, but while we were finding a spot to pull over, my back siezed up, and I was in major pain. But, that's beside the point. All my questions are underlined and italicized.

My main question is this: The officer didn't ask him to sign the ticket making him liable to dispose of the charges or appear in court. I'm sure that doesn't mean he's not liable, but what exactly does that mean?

He wants to fight the ticket because he was speeding to avoid an accident. We're pretty sure it won't get him anywhere, but he thinks he has to try. I guess if it makes him feel better for trying, I don't see a problem with it. But, is speeding to avoid an accident ever a viable excuse?

I also have another question. If he signs the back of the ticket, therefore pleading guilty, is he only liable for the violations listed in the box describing the violations? The officer said that he didn't right down the failure to provide proof of insurance, but the box next to proof of insurance is checked no. Also, his address on the ticket is a MO address, but he has a CA driver's license. So, if he signs the back of the ticket, does he only have to pay for the speeding violation? That's all that we understood from what the officer said that we had to pay. If that's so, he goes to court, is found guilty of the speeding violation, and doesn't have proof of insurance then; will he also be held responsible for not having insurance, and for having an out of state license?

There was also a new law that went into effect concerning fees for traffic violations the day we got the ticket. But, he got the ticket before the time when the law went into effect. So, if he goes to court, and is found guilty, are his fees under the old law, or the new law?

in my state (idaho) an officer only has to sign the bottom of the ticket which certifies that he is serving the citation on the offender, the officer is not required to have the offender sign it.

he should only be liable for the violation actually listed on the citation.

if you or he uses the excuse that it was a medical emergency, the judge will ask "were you speeding, regardless of the reason" and if you or him answers honestly then he will find him guilty.

i can not answer you about the old law, new law question; that would be a question for an employee of court services or an attorney for traffic court.

How was he speeding to avoid an accident? In any case, if he was I you could mention this in court, but it would be hard to prove unless the officer saw the near miss, or you have a witness.

As for the officer not having him sign the ticket, I would talk to a lawyer. Signing the ticket is a promise to appear in court. If he didn't promise it's quite possible he can get out of it. I've heard that can work, but the guy in Idaho is correct in pointing out that this may not apply to MO.

As for the old law, new law, thing I'm pretty confident in saying that since the offense occurred under the old law you're looking at the old law for the fine, unless the wording of the law makes it retroactive. I'd get a copy of it. Your library might have it. (Construction zone?)
As for the proof of insurance thing, I suspect the clerk won't even see it if you just pay the ticket, and I think Idaho's also right in that they can't prosecute you unless he gave you a ticket specifically for that. I could be wrong, however, and since you're facing a nasty fine if found guilty of no insurance, I think I'd spend the money to talk to a lawyer.