Prudent/Reasonable Speeding Ticket

[resullivan]

What is the name of your state? Alabama

Ok, this is what happened. I was stopped at a red light next to another vehicle. There were 3 lanes and I was in a lane that was about to end. In order to get over I decided to speed up to pass the vehicle next to me. The vehicle next to me did not like this idea so they also accelerated. At about this time we passed a cop sitting on the side of the road. I saw him pull out so, having the feeling I was going over the speed limit but honestly not knowing how fast I was going, I pulled over before he even was fully pulled out. He stopped behind me letting the other vehicle go. He indicated that he did not clock me but that he felt he should give me a reckless driving ticket due to the high speed of the wind. He gave me a prudent/reasonable speeding ticket. After looking this up it appears to me that the point of these tickets is for those not necessarily exceeding the posted maximum speeding limit but going at a rate that is not approriate for the situation. To me this sounds like they still need to clock you as the officer is relying on his perception of my speed otherwise. So my questions:

1. Is it reasonable to plead not guilty to this? Do I have a chance that it will be thrown out?

2. If I do plead not guilty to this is there the possibility of them trying to give me the harsher reckless driving ticket? If they can do this, is it likely that this will hold up?

It felt as if I were speeding but neither I nor the officer can say for sure. The posted limit was 45 but my argument is: what if the officer had just witnessed a person driving way under the speed limit and was using that to base my speed?

 

[The Occultist]

Allow me to explain the flaw in your logic. Officers are never actually required to clock you. Any officer who is trained in radar is actually trained to visually estimate speeds. The radar is just there for confirmation. Also keep in mind that radar devices to print out a receipt or anything to prove they clocked you at a certain speed, and even if they did, there's still no way to prove that the receipt would belong to your speed or anybody else's.

This charge is the officer's expert opinion that you were going to fast for conditions. The courts will view the officer as an unbiased witness in court. You can try for some sort of plea bargain, but if you wish to try and beat the charge, I recommend getting an attorney to represent you.

 

[efflandt]

Some clue of your speed may have been how many gears you went through drag racing the guy next to you. What speed is your redline in 2nd gear? In a merging lane you should yield to traffic in the lane you are merging into.

I was once at a red light in a 3/4 ton pickup with fiberglass utility body, and apparently a guy who did not realize I had a V8 w/4.10 gears, thought he could get a jump on me and pass me from the right turn lane (which did not extend past the crossroad). I had no clue he was going to try that, so when we both took off on green, he drove up the curb past the intersection blowing both front tires. He learned his lesson.

Apparently the office thought you were a bit overzealous.

 

[resullivan]

Some clue of your speed may have been how many gears you went through drag racing the guy next to you. What speed is your redline in 2nd gear? In a merging lane you should yield to traffic in the lane you are merging into.

I was once at a red light in a 3/4 ton pickup with fiberglass utility body, and apparently a guy who did not realize I had a V8 w/4.10 gears, thought he could get a jump on me and pass me from the right turn lane (which did not extend past the crossroad). I had no clue he was going to try that, so when we both took off on green, he drove up the curb past the intersection blowing both front tires. He learned his lesson.

Apparently the office thought you were a bit overzealous.

It sounds like you were lucky there were no cops sitting down the road. But hey thanks for nothing.

 

[resullivan]

Allow me to explain the flaw in your logic. Officers are never actually required to clock you. Any officer who is trained in radar is actually trained to visually estimate speeds. The radar is just there for confirmation. Also keep in mind that radar devices to print out a receipt or anything to prove they clocked you at a certain speed, and even if they did, there's still no way to prove that the receipt would belong to your speed or anybody else's.

This charge is the officer's expert opinion that you were going to fast for conditions. The courts will view the officer as an unbiased witness in court. You can try for some sort of plea bargain, but if you wish to try and beat the charge, I recommend getting an attorney to represent you.

The ticket is not serious enough for an attorney. I have been planning on just going and paying whatever it was until I looked up what was online about prudent speeding. Though I don't agree with the fact that you can be charged based on an officers "expert opinion" on your speed, if you say that is what they do, then I will most likely not worry about fighting it. Can anyone else confirm this?

 

[JIMinCA]

Well, Occultist is slightly correct. The cop can charge you based on his visual observation. However, he is much less credible than if he used radar. Furthermore, if you were not exceeding the speed limit, then his burden gets tougher. Of course his "expert" testimony will be accepted by the court, but it has to be based on something. Personally, I think that you could poke more holes in his position than swiss cheese with minimal effort.

I think the first thing you should do is look up the statute you were charged with. To base your defense on "prudent/reasonable" is speculating at best. Get the actual statute so you can see exactly what you have been charged with violating.

I would be willing to bet that the cop won't even show up to court as he likely won't want to explain to the judge his rationale for issuing this ticket in the first place.

 

[Zigner]

Well, Occultist is slightly correct. The cop can charge you based on his visual observation. However, he is much less credible than if he used radar. Furthermore, if you were not exceeding the speed limit, then his burden gets tougher. Of course his "expert" testimony will be accepted by the court, but it has to be based on something. Personally, I think that you could poke more holes in his position than swiss cheese with minimal effort.

I think the first thing you should do is look up the statute you were charged with. To base your defense on "prudent/reasonable" is speculating at best. Get the actual statute so you can see exactly what you have been charged with violating.

I would be willing to bet that the cop won't even show up to court as he likely won't want to explain to the judge his rationale for issuing this ticket in the first place.

Jim - stick to CA law...

Our OP was street racing!

 

[resullivan]

Jim - stick to CA law...

Our OP was street racing!

I was not street racing. Regardless of what I was doing I do not feel it is up to the interpretation or perception of an officer that was obviously not paying attention. It is innocent until proven guilty and frankly if it is not possible to prove anything in my case I do not feel like donating my money to the city.

My position is that I honestly do not know how fast I was going and neither does he. I appreciate the advice Jim and thank you for the assumption Zigner.

At this point I will most likely just plead guilty but I want to know my chances if I feel the judge is going to be overly strict (perhaps jump to conclusions he could in no way substantiate like someone else).

 

[Zigner]

I was not street racing.

...I decided to speed up to pass the vehicle next to me. The vehicle next to me did not like this idea so they also accelerated.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Regardless of what I was doing I do not feel it is up to the interpretation or perception of an officer...

The law would beg to differ...

 

[resullivan]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...



The law would beg to differ...

Oh I said I tried to go a little faster than him and so he also accelerated. That must mean that we both had the throttle to the floor, squeeling tires, and were going 140 with children running around.

 

[resullivan]

The law would beg to differ...

Section 32-5A-170
Reasonable and prudent speed.
No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.

(Acts 1980, No. 80-434, p. 604, §8-101.)

See, silly me interprets this as meaning that you must be in excess of what has been determined a reasonable speed. The fact that they have no evidence other than an officers perception of my speed makes me think they have no ground to stand on. Besides, I was following the flow of traffic (which is often an indicator of reasonable speed), which so happened to be only one other car at the time which the officer also did not clock.

Also, it seems to me as an "expert witness" the officer would of had to attend some kind of training on determing the speed of a moving object by no other means than vision. Can anyone confirm that officers do attend this kind of training? They are very reliant on the radar/laser. I think otherwise he cannot make this kind of call. If I use a calculator to perform mathmatical procedures does that mean I can do those same procedures without the calculator without any kind of training?

 

[Silverplum]

Be sure to take your attitude with you to court. The Court always appreciates a good bit of 'tude.

Oh I said I tried to go a little faster than him and so he also accelerated. That must mean that we both had the throttle to the floor, squeeling tires, and were going 140 with children running around.

 

[Zigner]

Oh I said I tried to go a little faster than him and so he also accelerated. That must mean that we both had the throttle to the floor, squeeling tires, and were going 140 with children running around.

No, that means you were both accelerating in an attempt to prevent the other from reaching a certain point on the road first.

On a side note - I find it amazing every time someone comes here asking for help...but isn't truthful about their situation in the first place.

Pay it or fight it - I could care less. It's not me trying to figure out what to do with a ticket...

 

[JIMinCA]

No, that means you were both accelerating in an attempt to prevent the other from reaching a certain point on the road first.

On a side note - I find it amazing every time someone comes here asking for help...but isn't truthful about their situation in the first place.

Pay it or fight it - I could care less. It's not me trying to figure out what to do with a ticket...

If you couldn't care less... then why don't you just not post? Do you always comment and draw conclusions on matters that you have no personal knowlege of and that you don't care about? Seems pretty silly to me.

Resullivan came here for help, and once again, you just start poking. I have yet to see one thread where you were actually helpful to the OP vice just poking at them from your self-appointed high perch. You violate the intent of this forum, you are rude and you are terribly ill informed. Worse yet, you discourage people from actually seeking help from those who could help them. If you had an ounce of humility, you'd be ashamed of yourself.

 

[JIMinCA]

Be sure to take your attitude with you to court. The Court always appreciates a good bit of 'tude.

As I am sure the OP's here who are seeking help appreiciate your 'tude.