Improper Passing and Speeding in Massachusetts

[mcrenn]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Massachusetts.

I was Clocked and Estimated doing 88 in a 65, however I don't believe I was traveling at that rate of speed especially since the flow of traffic would not allow that $235. Additionally cited for Improper Passing x6 $105. I am trying to figure out what improper passing is, I have searched the web for M.G.L. c. 89, § 1, and have yet to find anything on it but that it is improper passing. What are my best ways to fight these two so called infringments? Thanks!

-C

 

[HighwayMan]

...I don't believe I was traveling at that rate of speed especially since the flow of traffic would not allow that...

That is a very poor defense.

I've heard it so many times in court I've lost count.

What do you mean you couldn't find anything on the passing charge? What exactly do you mean? You have the statute number - didn't you read it?

 

[mcrenn]

That is a very poor defense.

I've heard it so many times in court I've lost count.

What do you mean you couldn't find anything on the passing charge? What exactly do you mean? You have the statute number - didn't you read it?

I have a statute number, however there is nothing as far as a description of the statute. So what is the best defense if mine is a poor excuse?

 

[Zigner]

I have a statute number, however there is nothing as far as a description of the statute. So what is the best defense if mine is a poor excuse?

How do you intend to counter the evidence that you were speeding? Your testimony of "I don't believe I was going that fast" won't cut it.

 

[Zigner]

As to the passing, I'm not sure what web you've been searching...but this link may help:

http://bit.ly/13qB4Z1

 

[mcrenn]

How do you intend to counter the evidence that you were speeding? Your testimony of "I don't believe I was going that fast" won't cut it.

What evidence does the Trooper have, he clocked/estimated my speed, there was no radar???

 

[Zigner]

What evidence does the Trooper have, he clocked/estimated my speed, there was no radar???

Testimony is evidence. His testimony is pretty strong evidence. Now the ball is in your court to counter that evidence (his testimony).

 

[mcrenn]

Testimony is evidence. His testimony is pretty strong evidence. Now the ball is in your court to counter that evidence (his testimony).

There is no scientific evidence though. I was speeding but not doing 88 mph. That is all I am saying...

 

[Zigner]

There is no scientific evidence though. I was speeding but not doing 88 mph. That is all I am saying...

Again, the officer's testimony carries a lot of weight. The simple fact that you have no idea how fast you were going weighs against you. You can't even say "My speedometer read 70mph" because you have no clue.

 

[cbg]

Let's put it this way.

Even if we concede that there is no "scientific evidence" that does not help you. So it comes down to he-said, she-said, what happens?

The officer says you were going 88 miles an hour. He has no incentive to lie. He does not get paid more for saying so, and he gets no benefit for saying you were going faster than you were.

You, on the other hand, come back and say, "I wasn't going 88. I don't know what speed I was going, but it wasn't that fast". You have a definite incentive to say that you were not going as fast as the officer said you were. You get fined if the court does not believe you.

So, which story is the court reasonably going to like better? The one coming from someone who has no incentive to tell anything but the truth as he knows it, or the one from someone who will be out a couple hundred bucks if the other story is believed?

Remember, if he doesn't have any "scientific evidence", neither do you.

 

[davew128]

The reason the speed is important in MA IIRC is that the fine is an additional $10 for every MPH over 10 beyond the speed limit.

 

[Zigner]

The reason the speed is important in MA IIRC is that the fine is an additional $10 for every MPH over 10 beyond the speed limit.

It's too bad that the OP has no evidence to rebut the evidence against him...

 

[davew128]

It's too bad that the OP has no evidence to rebut the evidence against him...

In all likelihood it won't matter at appeal as the magistrate would likely knock the fine down to the minimum.

 

[Just Blue]

There is no scientific evidence though. I was speeding but not doing 88 mph. That is all I am saying...

So what WERE you doing? 90? 85?