Is this speeding ticket valid?
Steve Pridgeon
officer forgot to get me to sign the ticket. Can some barrackroom lawyer
(or a real one perhaps, Jim?) tell me if this affects the validity of the
ticket?
---
The pen is mighter than the sword; paper cuts can be quite nasty, too.
Steve P.
Fat Pat
>
> Yesterday I got lasered at the bottom of the Colwood strip. However, the
> officer forgot to get me to sign the ticket. Can some barrackroom lawyer
> (or a real one perhaps, Jim?) tell me if this affects the validity of the
> ticket?
I disputed a ticket like this once. It went know where. The officer simply testified
that he did indeed issue me this ticket. The judge agreed and found me guilty. The
whole process to less than 5 minutes.
I dispute every ticket I get - and I get a lot of them! 75% of the time, I am found
guilty. 25% of the time not. I beat one ticket just because I could not read the
officer's hand writing. Neither could the judge!!
Fatpat
J. Michael Cain
>Yesterday I got lasered at the bottom of the Colwood strip. However, the
>officer forgot to get me to sign the ticket. Can some barrackroom lawyer
>(or a real one perhaps, Jim?) tell me if this affects the validity of the
>ticket?
The signature serves as a acknowledgement of service. If it is not signed,
the officer need only testify that he/she served it upon you. Issue closed.
Michael Cain, Director of Research
SENSE - Safety by Education Not Speed Enforcement
WEB-SITE: http://www.sense.bc.ca
E-MAIL: in...@sense.bc.ca
Steve Pridgeon
}In article <17342.94384...@news2.islandnet.com>, Bruce Clarke
}<brcl...@island2.islandnet.com> wrote:
}
}> Dale Green <maps...@digitallattice.bc.sporkca> wrote:
}> : Several people have asked me almost the same question as yours (address
}> : slightly wrong, etc.) and I tell them the same thing: What do you think the
}> : traffic court judge will do when you're wasting the court's time with a
}> : minor detail like this? Remember, the indicated fine on the ticket is a
}> : suggestion for the officer only. Summary offences, like traffic tickets,
}> : carry a max $2000 fine or 6 mos in jail at the discretion of the judge.
}>
}> I say fight it. You don't stand a chance of winning, but at least you'll
}> feel better after making the government work for the money it's taking
}> from you.
}>
}
}. . . kind of depends whether the poster can afford to gamble with
}$200-2000 really :) I agree with Dale here. I'm not averse to speeding
}myself once in a while, but when you get caught, you must accept the
}responsibility.
Why? It's not a good idea to accept bad laws in a democracy, and while
realistic limits are not intrinsically a bad thing, their manipulation to
fill the government coffers is an abuse of the legal system.
___
Steve P. Yours ~nity
Steve Pridgeon
}I'm not a lawyer but I have had a bit of experience with this in the past.
}
}It's legal. The signature is not necessary. Some officers will just write
}"served" in that field if they think the violator will be difficult about
}signing. In his notes he will have noted that you didn't sign. It's not a
}big deal.
I was afraid that might be the case.
}Think of the ways you can receive a ticket without a signature such as photo
}radar...
Yes, I was aware of that, but there are limitations in that case, for
instance they cannot assess points.
}Several people have asked me almost the same question as yours (address
}slightly wrong, etc.) and I tell them the same thing: What do you think the
}traffic court judge will do when you're wasting the court's time with a
}minor detail like this?
Well, our legal system has always been big on technicalities (remember
the car-thieving kids from Sidney who got off because the cop didn't
specify BC? As if we tried Nova Scotia cases in Victoria! For something
as odious as a speeding ticket, I would willingly exploit any loophole I
could find.
} Remember, the indicated fine on the ticket is a
}suggestion for the officer only. Summary offences, like traffic tickets,
}carry a max $2000 fine or 6 mos in jail at the discretion of the judge.
Ouch!
}Just accept responsibility for your actions (you were speeding, right?) and
}pay it :-)
No, I wasn't speeding, I was exceeding the posted speed limit. Not the
same thing at all, especially with our ridiculous speed limits. I do not
drive to fast for road conditions. It irks me to pay this road tax when I
watch our boys in blue ignore safety issues on the road on a daily basis.
Thanks for the info, though.
SENSE makes sense.
Intelligence: the capacity for appreciating one's predicament.
Steve Pridgeon
}In article <17342.94384...@news2.islandnet.com>, Bruce Clarke
}<brcl...@island2.islandnet.com> wrote:
}
}> Dale Green <maps...@digitallattice.bc.sporkca> wrote:
}> : Several people have asked me almost the same question as yours (address
}> : slightly wrong, etc.) and I tell them the same thing: What do you think the
}> : traffic court judge will do when you're wasting the court's time with a
}> : minor detail like this? Remember, the indicated fine on the ticket is a
}> : suggestion for the officer only. Summary offences, like traffic tickets,
}> : carry a max $2000 fine or 6 mos in jail at the discretion of the judge.
}>
Steve Pridgeon
}Dale Green <maps...@digitallattice.bc.sporkca> wrote:
}: Several people have asked me almost the same question as yours (address
}: slightly wrong, etc.) and I tell them the same thing: What do you think the
}: traffic court judge will do when you're wasting the court's time with a
}: minor detail like this? Remember, the indicated fine on the ticket is a
}: suggestion for the officer only. Summary offences, like traffic tickets,
}: carry a max $2000 fine or 6 mos in jail at the discretion of the judge.
}
}I say fight it. You don't stand a chance of winning, but at least you'll
}feel better after making the government work for the money it's taking
}from you.
Deal!
You'll pay my costs if it goes against me, right?
;)
Trikky
> Why? It's not a good idea to accept bad laws in a democracy, and while
> realistic limits are not intrinsically a bad thing, their manipulation to
> fill the government coffers is an abuse of the legal system.
*Yawn*
You knew the speed limit, right?
You knew you were going over the posted speed limit, right?
You knew that it is illegal to go over the posted speed limit, right?
You knew there were penalties for going over the posted limit, right?
You voluntarily drove over the posted speed limit, right?
The government is doing NOTHING to "fill their coffers" or "manipulate"
anything. You chose to break the law and you got caught, plain and simple.
<Enter Soapbox mode>
Quit yer whining and just pay the damn fine. Regardless of if you like
or agree with the law, you knew it was there and you knew there were
penalties. If everyone was allowed to ignore the laws they disagreed with,
the world would be a crappy place.
I think the law against theft is a bad law...does that give me the right
to break into your house or steal your car? No. I think the law against
following your girlfriend everywhere she goes is unreasonable and infringes
on my rights. Does that mean I can stalk her? No.
Your griping about the speeding ticket you got is no different. You KNEW
what you were doing was illegal yet you chose to do it anyway...and now
you're bitching 'cause you got caught.
I hope you don't have any kids, lest you'll be teaching them a
wonderfully poor lesson.
If you're serious about challenging the laws, why don't you do something
about them. File a Supreme Court challenge. Betcha won't, because whingers
like you don't have the guts to go all the way. Heck, you've proven that
you don't even have the guts to accept responsibility for your own
behaviour.
<Exit Soapbox mode>
Cheers and best wishes,
P. Sparrow
take about 6 months for them to write you a letter giving you a date
for court. When you are called up to the bench state that you don't
recall anything about the ticket and say if you did where is your
signiture.
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 16:17:34 -0800, Steve Pridgeon
<ste...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>Yesterday I got lasered at the bottom of the Colwood strip. However, the
>officer forgot to get me to sign the ticket. Can some barrackroom lawyer
>(or a real one perhaps, Jim?) tell me if this affects the validity of the
>ticket?
>
Steve Pridgeon
}G'day, all! In a recent article, Steve Pridgeon (ste...@islandnet.com) said:
}
}> Why? It's not a good idea to accept bad laws in a democracy, and while
}> realistic limits are not intrinsically a bad thing, their manipulation to
}> fill the government coffers is an abuse of the legal system.
}
} *Yawn*
You could at least put your hand over your mouth.
}You knew the speed limit, right?
Yep.
}You knew you were going over the posted speed limit, right?
Yep.
}You knew that it is illegal to go over the posted speed limit, right?
Yep.
}You knew there were penalties for going over the posted limit, right?
Yep.
}You voluntarily drove over the posted speed limit, right?
Yep.
Your point?
} The government is doing NOTHING to "fill their coffers" or "manipulate"
}anything. You chose to break the law and you got caught, plain and simple.
They give the money away to charity, perhaps?
}<Enter Soapbox mode>
You already did that.
} Quit yer whining and just pay the damn fine.
I'd like you to quote the place where I whined. Otherwise keep to the
facts and avoid insults. You lose credibility otherwise.
} Regardless of if you like
}or agree with the law, you knew it was there and you knew there were
}penalties. If everyone was allowed to ignore the laws they disagreed with,
}the world would be a crappy place.
Agreed. However, my statement above still applies. It is not a good idea
to accept bad laws. That does not mean they should be merely ignored.
} I think the law against theft is a bad law...does that give me the right
}to break into your house or steal your car? No. I think the law against
}following your girlfriend everywhere she goes is unreasonable and infringes
}on my rights. Does that mean I can stalk her? No.
You seem not to have noticed the word 'realistic' above. "Unrealistic" in
your examples might include, say, a law against looking through people's
windows lest you see any valuables, or against living in the same town as
any girl once you have broken up with her, so that she can be spared the
discomfort of bumping into you.
} Your griping about the speeding ticket you got is no different. You KNEW
}what you were doing was illegal yet you chose to do it anyway...and now
}you're bitching 'cause you got caught.
Answer this: say a law was passed to try to clean up the streets of
Victoria. The law prohibited people from 'loitering', i.e. standing about
on city streets. One repercussion of this is that people can now be
ticketed for such innocuous activities as window-shopping. Would you
observe the law?
} I hope you don't have any kids, lest you'll be teaching them a
}wonderfully poor lesson.
I teach them that blind obedience to any authority is foolish.
} If you're serious about challenging the laws, why don't you do something
}about them. File a Supreme Court challenge. Betcha won't, because whingers
}like you don't have the guts to go all the way. Heck, you've proven that
}you don't even have the guts to accept responsibility for your own
}behaviour.
Again with the insults. I wouldn't file a Supreme Court challenge of my
speeding ticket, even if I had the money, (as in other countries, you
need plenty of cash if you wish to avail yourself of the legal system),
because it would certainly fail. Again I refer you to my statement. It's
not the law itself I object to, but the setting of traps by unrealisitic
limits combined with excessively overzealous enforcement (dare I mention
photo radar as further evidence?). As to 'guts' I have marched and spent
countless volunteer hours in opposition to other injustices, including
hundreds of hours spent in a successful campaign to protect the care of
critically sick children on Vancouver Island. I hope you are similarly
committed to the issues you believe in. I can't fight everything,
however; I have to leave some time in which to set my kids a bad example
:)
As to accepting responsibility for my behaviour, I have over 20 years
driving experience without a single accident. I have always used my own
judgement rather than arbitrary numbers as my guide. I stand by my own
driving capabilities, and daily shake my head in disbelief at the number
of people who disregard, or are perhaps in ignorance of, safe driving
practices, and at the radar-happy police who ignore so much that goes on
on our roads.
}<Exit Soapbox mode>
I doubt it.
}Cheers and best wishes,
---
Steve P.
A place for everything and everything all over the place.
Ron Martell
> ul141@*spamfrag*victoria.tc.ca said:
>
>}In article <17342.94384...@news2.islandnet.com>, Bruce Clarke
>}<brcl...@island2.islandnet.com> wrote:
>}
>}> Dale Green <maps...@digitallattice.bc.sporkca> wrote:
>}> : Several people have asked me almost the same question as yours (address
>}> : slightly wrong, etc.) and I tell them the same thing: What do you think the
>}> : traffic court judge will do when you're wasting the court's time with a
>}> : minor detail like this? Remember, the indicated fine on the ticket is a
>}> : suggestion for the officer only. Summary offences, like traffic tickets,
>}> : carry a max $2000 fine or 6 mos in jail at the discretion of the judge.
>}>
>}> I say fight it. You don't stand a chance of winning, but at least you'll
>}> feel better after making the government work for the money it's taking
>}> from you.
>}>
>}
>}. . . kind of depends whether the poster can afford to gamble with
>}$200-2000 really :) I agree with Dale here. I'm not averse to speeding
>}myself once in a while, but when you get caught, you must accept the
>}responsibility.
>
>Why? It's not a good idea to accept bad laws in a democracy, and while
>realistic limits are not intrinsically a bad thing, their manipulation to
>fill the government coffers is an abuse of the legal system.
>
There are people who believe that the laws against robbing banks or
the sexual exploitation of children are bad laws. Does that make them
so?
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"Software is a gas. It expands to fill whatever container it is placed in."
J. Michael Cain
>Steve Pridgeon <ste...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>>Why? It's not a good idea to accept bad laws in a democracy, and while
>>realistic limits are not intrinsically a bad thing, their manipulation to
>>fill the government coffers is an abuse of the legal system.
>>
>
>There are people who believe that the laws against robbing banks or
>the sexual exploitation of children are bad laws. Does that make them
>so?
First, there are victims injured in the illegal offences you cite as examples.
Of the 600,000 speeding tickets issued in BC each year, very few are the
result of a crash injuring innocent victims (and those should result in
prosecution to the fullest extent of the law).
Second, the majority of the population of our democratic society does not rob
banks or sexually exploit children. But, I can cite highways in BC where 99%
of traffic (the majority) is speeding.
Third, there remains the fact that speeding is punished by a fine which goes
directly into general revenue. If speeding was punished by, for example,
mandatory driver training, public service, licence suspension, etc., then the
government could not be criticised for using speeding as a revenue generator.
Until they change this fact, they cannot be immune to accusations that their
over enforcement of speeding* is for revenue generation purposes. (* In 1998,
75.8% of tickets issued in BC were for speeding. Only 6.8% of tickets were
issued for the 8 categories of offences which were higher risk than speeding
-- based upon a 1995 ICBC study of risk.)
The fact remains that speeding tickets generate up to $100 million for BC
coffers each year by penalizing an offence which (for the vast majority of
tickets issued) is a victimless crime with no reduction in safety (as proven
by a number of studies).
Steve Pridgeon
}Steve Pridgeon <ste...@islandnet.com> wrote:
}
}> ul141@*spamfrag*victoria.tc.ca said:
}>
}>}In article <17342.94384...@news2.islandnet.com>, Bruce Clarke
}>}<brcl...@island2.islandnet.com> wrote:
}>}
}>}> Dale Green <maps...@digitallattice.bc.sporkca> wrote:
}>}> : Several people have asked me almost the same question as yours (address
}>}> : slightly wrong, etc.) and I tell them the same thing: What do you think the
}>}> : traffic court judge will do when you're wasting the court's time with a
}>}> : minor detail like this? Remember, the indicated fine on the ticket is a
}>}> : suggestion for the officer only. Summary offences, like traffic tickets,
}>}> : carry a max $2000 fine or 6 mos in jail at the discretion of the judge.
}>}>
}>}> I say fight it. You don't stand a chance of winning, but at least you'll
}>}> feel better after making the government work for the money it's taking
}>}> from you.
}>}>
}>}
}>}. . . kind of depends whether the poster can afford to gamble with
}>}$200-2000 really :) I agree with Dale here. I'm not averse to speeding
}>}myself once in a while, but when you get caught, you must accept the
}>}responsibility.
}>
}>Why? It's not a good idea to accept bad laws in a democracy, and while
}>realistic limits are not intrinsically a bad thing, their manipulation to
}>fill the government coffers is an abuse of the legal system.
}>
}
}There are people who believe that the laws against robbing banks or
}the sexual exploitation of children are bad laws. Does that make them
}so?
I refer you to my answer to Tr Icky. I have explained my position on this
there.
Steve Pridgeon
}In article <mmFFOIP0sbsvP7...@4ax.com>, Ron Martell <r...@onlinehelp.bc.ca> wrote:
}>Steve Pridgeon <ste...@islandnet.com> wrote:
}
}>>Why? It's not a good idea to accept bad laws in a democracy, and while
}>>realistic limits are not intrinsically a bad thing, their manipulation to
}>>fill the government coffers is an abuse of the legal system.
}>>
}>
}>There are people who believe that the laws against robbing banks or
}>the sexual exploitation of children are bad laws. Does that make them
}>so?
}
}First, there are victims injured in the illegal offences you cite as examples.
}Of the 600,000 speeding tickets issued in BC each year, very few are the
}result of a crash injuring innocent victims (and those should result in
}prosecution to the fullest extent of the law).
That's right, Michael. One problem with the term 'speeding' is that it
covers a multitude of sins, from a technical transgression to
four-wheeled insanity. It's rather like the ridiculous term 'sexual
assault' which covers everything from a bottom pinch to violent rape.
I certainly support the prosecution of those who drive too fast for road
conditions.
Dave 2
>
> Dale Green said:
>
> }I'm not a lawyer but I have had a bit of experience with this in the past.
> }
> }It's legal. The signature is not necessary. Some officers will just write
> }"served" in that field if they think the violator will be difficult about
> }signing. In his notes he will have noted that you didn't sign. It's not a
> }big deal.
>
> I was afraid that might be the case.
>
> }Think of the ways you can receive a ticket without a signature such as photo
> }radar...
>
> Yes, I was aware of that, but there are limitations in that case, for
> instance they cannot assess points.
Nor can they 'convict' you of the offence, or refuse to issue you a license or
insurance, unless that photo radar ticket has been served to you in person!
--
Happiness is a fresh TripTik.
Warning: Address has been modified.
Dave 2
> > realistic limits are not intrinsically a bad thing, their manipulation to
> > fill the government coffers is an abuse of the legal system.
>
>
> You knew the speed limit, right?
>
> anything. You chose to break the law and you got caught, plain and simple.
>
*ENTER* Soapox mode???? :)
Trikky
> Go to motor vehicle and request a date to appeal the ticket. It will
> take about 6 months for them to write you a letter giving you a date
> for court. When you are called up to the bench state that you don't
> recall anything about the ticket and say if you did where is your
> signiture.
This has to be some of the most ridiculous advice ever given. Firstly,
if you GO to request a date to appeal, it's obvious you've received a
ticket. Secondly, lying in court is...well...PURGERY and can be punishable
by something called imprisonment.
Trikky
(Positive answers to a number of questions I asked)
> Your point?
My point is that you KNEW what you were doing was both against the law
and subject to a fine. Therefore you have no grounds to appeal the penalty.
You chose to break the law despite knowing the consequences and could have
chosen the alternate behaviour, that of adhering to the law.
> } The government is doing NOTHING to "fill their coffers" or "manipulate"
> }anything. You chose to break the law and you got caught, plain and simple.
>
> They give the money away to charity, perhaps?
Please explain how they manipulate anything. The laws are there for
public knowledge, speed 'traps' are quite often publicised in the media and
photo radar vans normally stick out like a Bruce Willis movie.
> } Quit yer whining and just pay the damn fine.
>
> I'd like you to quote the place where I whined. Otherwise keep to the
> facts and avoid insults. You lose credibility otherwise.
Well, you ARE whining about the fact you got a ticket, didn't you -
-lest you wouldn't be trying to find some puny technicality to get out of it
on now, would you?
> Agreed. However, my statement above still applies. It is not a good idea
> to accept bad laws. That does not mean they should be merely ignored.
Well then, do something about it. Lobby the government, RUN for
government so you can try from within. Get some supporters to finance a
legal challenge. Until you do that, you're just a big talker -- nothing
more.
(I wrote:)
> } I think the law against theft is a bad law...does that give me the right
> }to break into your house or steal your car? No. I think the law against
> }following your girlfriend everywhere she goes is unreasonable and infringes
> }on my rights. Does that mean I can stalk her? No.
>
> You seem not to have noticed the word 'realistic' above.
Obviously some people think it not at all unreasonable to steal
someone's car, drive while intoxicated, or rape someone just for the sake of
doing it. Who decides what is unreasonable or realistic?
Before you say "society", let me share an observation. I've noticed
that in the Vancouver area, drivers ignore -- for the most part --
pedestrians at marked crossings. The vast majority of drivers just keep
driving through -- often just missing the pedestrian (or, unfortunately, not
missing them). Obviously "society" deems stopping for pedestrians to be a
normal practice. Does that mean we should change the law so we DON'T have
to stop at occupied crossings now?
If you don't believe my observation is accurate, go to almost any
crossing not controlled (though even controlled have this problem) by
traffic lights and see for yourself.
> } Your griping about the speeding ticket you got is no different. You KNEW
> }what you were doing was illegal yet you chose to do it anyway...and now
> }you're bitching 'cause you got caught.
>
> Answer this: say a law was passed to try to clean up the streets of
> Victoria. The law prohibited people from 'loitering', i.e. standing about
> on city streets. One repercussion of this is that people can now be
> ticketed for such innocuous activities as window-shopping. Would you
> observe the law?
Loitering is not window-shopping. Nor is it waiting for a bus.
> } I hope you don't have any kids, lest you'll be teaching them a
> }wonderfully poor lesson.
>
> I teach them that blind obedience to any authority is foolish.
But do you teach them to ignore those rules they disagree with? Do you
teach them that they don't have to accept the consequences of their
behaviour?
> Again with the insults. I wouldn't file a Supreme Court challenge of my
> speeding ticket, even if I had the money, (as in other countries, you
> need plenty of cash if you wish to avail yourself of the legal system),
> because it would certainly fail.
Why do you say that? If you have a valid argument against the law -- or
the ticket -- then it would succeed.
> Again I refer you to my statement. It's
> not the law itself I object to, but the setting of traps by unrealisitic
> limits
As outlined earlier, these "traps" are quite often publicised and more
often than not in regular locations.
> combined with excessively overzealous enforcement (dare I mention
> photo radar as further evidence?).
Where's the overzealous enforcement? The vans are EXTREMEMLY obvious,
locations are normally publicised and these days they even have orange cones
by the back end. I don't see too many private cars with these marking their
outside corner. Furthermore, they are normally set to "catch" those going a
certain amount over the limit. If it was overzealous enforcement, surely it
would be catching those driving over the limit, no matter by how far.
> As to accepting responsibility for my behaviour, I have over 20 years
> driving experience without a single accident. I have always used my own
> judgement rather than arbitrary numbers as my guide. I stand by my own
> driving capabilities, and daily shake my head in disbelief at the number
> of people who disregard, or are perhaps in ignorance of, safe driving
> practices, and at the radar-happy police who ignore so much that goes on
> on our roads.
Sorry, your statement above says NOTHING about you accepting
responsibility for your behaviour. Your posts say plenty, however.
Regards to you and yours.
Dave 2
> > Answer this: say a law was passed to try to clean up the streets of
> > Victoria. The law prohibited people from 'loitering', i.e. standing about
> > on city streets. One repercussion of this is that people can now be
> > ticketed for such innocuous activities as window-shopping. Would you
> > observe the law?
> Loitering is not window-shopping. Nor is it waiting for a bus.
The police find Trikky window shopping on Johnson Street. They arrest him for
loitering. What is his recourse?
Steve Pridgeon
}G'day, all! In a recent article, Steve Pridgeon (ste...@islandnet.com) said:
}
}(Positive answers to a number of questions I asked)
}> Your point?
} My point is that you KNEW what you were doing was both against the law
}and subject to a fine. Therefore you have no grounds to appeal the penalty.
Nor did I intend to, nor did I imply that was my intent.
}You chose to break the law despite knowing the consequences and could have
}chosen the alternate behaviour, that of adhering to the law.
Agreed. You still have not stated your point.
}> } The government is doing NOTHING to "fill their coffers" or "manipulate"
}> }anything. You chose to break the law and you got caught, plain and simple.
}>
}> They give the money away to charity, perhaps?
} Please explain how they manipulate anything. The laws are there for
}public knowledge, speed 'traps' are quite often publicised in the media and
}photo radar vans normally stick out like a Bruce Willis movie.
}
}> } Quit yer whining and just pay the damn fine.
}>
}> I'd like you to quote the place where I whined. Otherwise keep to the
}> facts and avoid insults. You lose credibility otherwise.
} Well, you ARE whining about the fact you got a ticket, didn't you -
}-lest you wouldn't be trying to find some puny technicality to get out of it
}on now, would you?
Where did I whine about getting a ticket? Just quote the line of text so
I can see what you are referring to.
In fact, it seems to me that much of your 'argument' consists of baseless
assertions, ad hominen attackes and straw man fallacies.
}> Agreed. However, my statement above still applies. It is not a good idea
}> to accept bad laws. That does not mean they should be merely ignored.
} Well then, do something about it. Lobby the government, RUN for
}government so you can try from within. Get some supporters to finance a
}legal challenge. Until you do that, you're just a big talker -- nothing
}more.
I am doing something about it, specifically stimulating debate on the
topic in a public forum. Changes regarding social injustice often stem
from a groundswell of public opinion.
}(I wrote:)
}> } I think the law against theft is a bad law...does that give me the right
}> }to break into your house or steal your car? No. I think the law against
}> }following your girlfriend everywhere she goes is unreasonable and infringes
}> }on my rights. Does that mean I can stalk her? No.
}>
}> You seem not to have noticed the word 'realistic' above.
} Obviously some people think it not at all unreasonable to steal
}someone's car, drive while intoxicated, or rape someone just for the sake of
}doing it. Who decides what is unreasonable or realistic?
While a term like 'realistic' is subjective, crimes with clearly
identifiable adverse consequences to others could not qualify by any
criteria, as the entire legal system evolved primarily as a means of
protecting individuals from the unreasonable actions of others. The
offence of exceeding the posted speed limit does not have an identifiable
victim, therefore its legitimacy is debatable, at least.
} Before you say "society", let me share an observation. I've noticed
}that in the Vancouver area, drivers ignore -- for the most part --
}pedestrians at marked crossings. The vast majority of drivers just keep
}driving through -- often just missing the pedestrian (or, unfortunately, not
}missing them). Obviously "society" deems stopping for pedestrians to be a
}normal practice. Does that mean we should change the law so we DON'T have
}to stop at occupied crossings now?
Just because the majority of a group ignore a law does not mean that the
law is unjust. The criterion I mentioned above - the presence of a victim
- applies here.
...
}> Answer this: say a law was passed to try to clean up the streets of
}> Victoria. The law prohibited people from 'loitering', i.e. standing about
}> on city streets. One repercussion of this is that people can now be
}> ticketed for such innocuous activities as window-shopping. Would you
}> observe the law?
} Loitering is not window-shopping. Nor is it waiting for a bus.
Read more carefully. This law defines standing about on city streets as
'loitering'. Bus stops are exempted, but to stand gazing in a shop window
is illegal. So answer the question: would you observe this law?
}> } I hope you don't have any kids, lest you'll be teaching them a
}> }wonderfully poor lesson.
}>
}> I teach them that blind obedience to any authority is foolish.
} But do you teach them to ignore those rules they disagree with? Do you
}teach them that they don't have to accept the consequences of their
}behaviour?
I teach them how to judge a situation on its merits, rather than to obey
blindly. I teach them not to dismiss any rule arbitrarily, but that if it
does not stand up to close scrutiny, it is likely unjust. I also teach
them that they always have to accept the consequences of whatever choices
they make as a result of their assessments. Blaming someone else for your
own actions is never an acceptable response.
}> Again with the insults. I wouldn't file a Supreme Court challenge of my
}> speeding ticket, even if I had the money, (as in other countries, you
}> need plenty of cash if you wish to avail yourself of the legal system),
}> because it would certainly fail.
} Why do you say that? If you have a valid argument against the law -- or
}the ticket -- then it would succeed.
Because I do not dispute that I was exceeding the posted limit. Nor have
I from the outset. It's not the law itself I am decrying (although I
believe there are better ways to control traffic speed), but the
manipulation of the law by the police for the harvesting of revenues.
Watch out for those straw men, Tr Icky.
}> Again I refer you to my statement. It's
}> not the law itself I object to, but the setting of traps by unrealisitic
}> limits
} As outlined earlier, these "traps" are quite often publicised and more
}often than not in regular locations.
Is that why they now attempt to conceal the vans by the use of terrain
(e.g. the Malahat), or by parking a car in front with the hood up, or
even by putting netting over the flash unit?
The last laser trap I observed before the one that got me consisted of
two cops literally hiding in the bushes at the end of Dewdney Flat, an
area in which the vast majority of drivers speed due to the lack of side
roads, the straight highway and the general good visibility. Another
time, a motorcycle cop literally hid his bike in the ditch on the same
stretch. I'm sure most of us have seen examples of the extremes that they
will go to to conceal their presence - and of course, there are even more
times when they succeed, so we don't see them at all.
}> combined with excessively overzealous enforcement (dare I mention
}> photo radar as further evidence?).
} Where's the overzealous enforcement? The vans are EXTREMEMLY obvious,
}locations are normally publicised and these days they even have orange cones
}by the back end. I don't see too many private cars with these marking their
}outside corner.
You've missed the point. Commercial vehicles have to put a cone there to
mark a broken-down or hazardously parked vehicle, e.g. a Hydro van. The
cone helps the camouflage.
}Furthermore, they are normally set to "catch" those going a
}certain amount over the limit. If it was overzealous enforcement, surely it
}would be catching those driving over the limit, no matter by how far.
Ten clicks, which is about as rigorous as they dare, so far, although
they have publicly stated that they may eventually go to zero tolerance.
Seeing as they quickly abandoned all the other self-imposed restrictions
they used to sell the idea, I wouldn't hold my breath.
}> As to accepting responsibility for my behaviour, I have over 20 years
}> driving experience without a single accident. I have always used my own
}> judgement rather than arbitrary numbers as my guide. I stand by my own
}> driving capabilities, and daily shake my head in disbelief at the number
}> of people who disregard, or are perhaps in ignorance of, safe driving
}> practices, and at the radar-happy police who ignore so much that goes on
}> on our roads.
}
} Sorry, your statement above says NOTHING about you accepting
}responsibility for your behaviour. Your posts say plenty, however.
Actually, it does. Accepting responsibility for behaviour encompasses
good, as well as bad behaviour. My driving behaviour has led to a long
history of uneventful driving (apart from the odd ticket), and I accept
that my behaviour has led to that result. Should I one day take a silly
risk and harm myself or someone else as a result, I will accept the
consequences of that, too.
A suggestion: if you reply, which you undoubtedly will, please restrict
your response to what I have actually written, not what you imagine I
really mean. To do otherwise is fallacious debate, and wastes my time and
yours.
Trikky
> Nor did I intend to, [speed] nor did I imply that was my intent.
You may have a valid excuse against the ticket here, as long as you
weren't speeding by too much and you get a magistrate in a good mood.
(I wrote:)
> }You chose to break the law despite knowing the consequences and could have
> }chosen the alternate behaviour, that of adhering to the law.
>
> Agreed. You still have not stated your point.
It's fairly obvious -- but you refuse to see it. The point is that you
broke the law (i.e. you drove over the posted limit) despite knowing that
such an act could result in a fine. You have no defence against an
intentional act that knowingly breaks the law.
> Where did I whine about getting a ticket? Just quote the line of text so
> I can see what you are referring to.
"Is this speeding ticket valid?", accusing the police officer of
"manipulating" the law so he could give you a ticket...they're pretty good
indicators of you whining about the fact you copped it. If you weren't
whining, then why would you be trying to get out of a ticket you received --
not because you claim you didn't break the law, but on a *minor*
technicality?
> In fact, it seems to me that much of your 'argument' consists of baseless
> assertions,
We've already established that you knew what the law was, you knew there
were penalties for breaking that law and that you went ahead and did it
anyway. Definitely not baseless there. No other assertions have been made.
Sorry. If you're talking about me saying you're whining about the ticket,
well...while you haven't *actually* whined in your posts...the content of
the article has you whining about a ticket you received fairly.
> ad hominen attackes and straw man fallacies.
I don't remember saying that the straw man did anything -- the butler,
maybe...but not the strawman.
> }> Agreed. However, my statement above still applies. It is not a good idea
> }> to accept bad laws. That does not mean they should be merely ignored.
> } Well then, do something about it. Lobby the government, RUN for
> }government so you can try from within. Get some supporters to finance a
> }legal challenge. Until you do that, you're just a big talker -- nothing
> }more.
>
> I am doing something about it, specifically stimulating debate on the
> topic in a public forum. Changes regarding social injustice often stem
> from a groundswell of public opinion.
Debate is good...but it's just that in the long term -- debate -- and
the forum is not one known for changing laws. If you're really serious, why
don't you lead by example and go to the bodies that REALLY have an impact on
our laws on an everyday basis? That said, at the end of the
debating-in-the-newsgroup-day, you still have to pay the fine that you got
while doing an act you knew would likely get you a fine if you you
continued.
> While a term like 'realistic' is subjective, crimes with clearly
> identifiable adverse consequences to others could not qualify by any
> criteria, as the entire legal system evolved primarily as a means of
> protecting individuals from the unreasonable actions of others. The
> offence of exceeding the posted speed limit does not have an identifiable
> victim, therefore its legitimacy is debatable, at least.
It does not a have an identifiable victim, however it is proven to
contribute proportionally to the amount of damage or severity of injuries
resulting from car crashes and reduces the ability to avoid an impact with
an obstruction, pedestrian or another car. Of course, if you're unable to
handle the vehicle, speed also contributes to the chance of a crash in the
first place.
> } Before you say "society", let me share an observation. I've noticed
> }that in the Vancouver area, drivers ignore -- for the most part --
> }pedestrians at marked crossings. The vast majority of drivers just keep
> }driving through -- often just missing the pedestrian (or, unfortunately, not
> }missing them). Obviously "society" deems stopping for pedestrians to be a
> }normal practice. Does that mean we should change the law so we DON'T have
> }to stop at occupied crossings now?
>
> Just because the majority of a group ignore a law does not mean that the
> law is unjust. The criterion I mentioned above - the presence of a victim
> - applies here.
There's no 'victim' when people don't stop at a pedestrian crossing,
either, unless they're hit on the crossing -- but that's akin to someone
being hit by a speeding car. Sure, a person is inconvenienced, but does
that make them a 'victim'? Therefore, my point stands.
> Read more carefully. This law defines standing about on city streets as
> 'loitering'. Bus stops are exempted, but to stand gazing in a shop window
> is illegal. So answer the question: would you observe this law?
Well, actually "loitering" is deemed as "without valid purpose" --
that's why bus stops are exempt. Window shopping would likely be seen as
being with valid purpose and therefore excluded. However, to answer your
question, I would likely still do my window shopping. If I knew it was
against the law and got ticketed for it, then I would challenge the law and
how it applies to people window shopping, but I wouldn't go looking for some
minor technicality, since I knew what I was doing was illegal.
You'll notice that nowhere in my posts have I said "thou shalt not
speed". That's because, like many others, I drive over the posted limit
from time to time. My posts are more along the lines of "you got caught
doing something you knew was illegal, so quit yer whining". If I get a
ticket (and never have), I would pay it because I know that I broke the law.
> I teach them how to judge a situation on its merits, rather than to obey
> blindly.I teach them not to dismiss any rule arbitrarily, but that if it
> does not stand up to close scrutiny, it is likely unjust.
However, just because THEY see it as unjust, does that mean they should
ignore it?
>I also teach them that they always have to accept the consequences of whatever
>choices they make as a result of their assessments. Blaming someone else for
> your own actions is never an acceptable response.
Why then are you finding out if you can weasel your way out of a
ticket that resulted from your actions? In your posts you accuse the police
of manipulating the law, so you're attempting to blame someone else for the
consequences of your own behaviour. Not a good example to set for your
children, is it?
> Because I do not dispute that I was exceeding the posted limit. Nor have
> I from the outset. It's not the law itself I am decrying (although I
> believe there are better ways to control traffic speed), but the
> manipulation of the law by the police for the harvesting of revenues.
Well then, pay the fine and challenge the law...or challenge the law by
challenging the ticket to the Supreme court. Posting to USEnet isn't going
to achieve much.
> Watch out for those straw men, Tr Icky.
No need.,..I'll just set a match to the grassy bastards. :-)
> Is that why they now attempt to conceal the vans by the use of terrain
> (e.g. the Malahat), or by parking a car in front with the hood up, or
> even by putting netting over the flash unit?
I've never seen these -- but surely they still get identified on radio
traffic reports or in general advisories?
> You've missed the point. Commercial vehicles have to put a cone there to
> mark a broken-down or hazardously parked vehicle, e.g. a Hydro van. The
> cone helps the camouflage.
But the PR van is designed to look like a regular mini-van, not a
commercial vehicle, so it sticks out. The program has been out long enough
for even semi-intelligent people to think "hey, that van sticks out -- maybe
it's a photo-radar van".
> }Furthermore, they are normally set to "catch" those going a
> }certain amount over the limit. If it was overzealous enforcement, surely it
> }would be catching those driving over the limit, no matter by how far.
>
> Ten clicks, which is about as rigorous as they dare, so far, although
> they have publicly stated that they may eventually go to zero tolerance.
> Seeing as they quickly abandoned all the other self-imposed restrictions
> they used to sell the idea, I wouldn't hold my breath.
However, it's not 'over-zealous' now, as is your claim.
> Actually, it does. Accepting responsibility for behaviour encompasses
> good, as well as bad behaviour. My driving behaviour has led to a long
> history of uneventful driving (apart from the odd ticket), and I accept
> that my behaviour has led to that result. Should I one day take a silly
> risk and harm myself or someone else as a result, I will accept the
> consequences of that, too.
Excellent. Why then do you want to get out of this ticket -- which is
no different to the earlier received tickets -- on a technicality?
Cheers and best wishes,
T.
Steve Pridgeon
}G'day, all! In a recent article, Steve Pridgeon (ste...@islandnet.com) said:
}
}> Nor did I intend to, [speed] nor did I imply that was my intent.
I never said any such thing, and I would thank you not to add your own
words to my statements. You seem incapable of arguing the points that I
make, preferring instead to invent your own version of reality. Do you
really not understand the strawman fallacy?
} You may have a valid excuse against the ticket here, as long as you
}weren't speeding by too much and you get a magistrate in a good mood.
}
}(I wrote:)
}> }You chose to break the law despite knowing the consequences and could have
}> }chosen the alternate behaviour, that of adhering to the law.
}>
}> Agreed. You still have not stated your point.
} It's fairly obvious -- but you refuse to see it. The point is that you
}broke the law (i.e. you drove over the posted limit) despite knowing that
}such an act could result in a fine. You have no defence against an
}intentional act that knowingly breaks the law.
You are very repetitious. I have never denied this. why do you think I
was checking the signature 'technicality' in the first place? I can't
comment on you as a person, but your posts betray no hint of
intelligence.
}...you haven't *actually* whined in your posts...
At last, you betray some evidence of glimpsing reality. Well done.
<...>
}> Just because the majority of a group ignore a law does not mean that the
}> law is unjust. The criterion I mentioned above - the presence of a victim
}> - applies here.
} There's no 'victim' when people don't stop at a pedestrian crossing,
}either, unless they're hit on the crossing -- but that's akin to someone
}being hit by a speeding car. Sure, a person is inconvenienced, but does
}that make them a 'victim'? Therefore, my point stands.
According to you, "inconvenienced' includes narrowly avoiding being hit
by a ton of hurtling metal when you have the right of way. I'd
characterise such a person as a 'victim'. If I waved a knife at someone
in order to make them stand aside, they would similarly be a victim, even
though physically unharmed.
}> Read more carefully. This law defines standing about on city streets as
}> 'loitering'. Bus stops are exempted, but to stand gazing in a shop window
}> is illegal. So answer the question: would you observe this law?
} Well, actually "loitering" is deemed as "without valid purpose" --
}that's why bus stops are exempt. Window shopping would likely be seen as
}being with valid purpose and therefore excluded. However, to answer your
}question, I would likely still do my window shopping.
Me too. But I wouldn't pay the fine if I could find a way not to.
} You'll notice that nowhere in my posts have I said "thou shalt not
}speed". That's because, like many others, I drive over the posted limit
}from time to time. My posts are more along the lines of "you got caught
}doing something you knew was illegal, so quit yer whining". If I get a
}ticket (and never have), I would pay it because I know that I broke the law.
If you believe the law to be just, and justly enforced, why do you break
it? It seems that you are not true to your own beliefs. I certainly would
not break such a law.
}> I teach them how to judge a situation on its merits, rather than to obey
}> blindly.I teach them not to dismiss any rule arbitrarily, but that if it
}> does not stand up to close scrutiny, it is likely unjust.
} However, just because THEY see it as unjust, does that mean they should
}ignore it?
See below.
}>I also teach them that they always have to accept the consequences of whatever
}>choices they make as a result of their assessments. Blaming someone else for
}> your own actions is never an acceptable response.
} Why then are you finding out if you can weasel your way out of a
}ticket that resulted from your actions? In your posts you accuse the police
}of manipulating the law, so you're attempting to blame someone else for the
}consequences of your own behaviour. Not a good example to set for your
}children, is it?
Illogical. The police have no responsibility for my behaviour. the fact
that they manipulate the law for the purpose of gathering revenue has no
effect on my behaviour whatsoever. I travel at a speed that I know to be
safe regardless. However, if someone penalises me for doing something
which was not unsafe, nor antisocial, I will attempt to avoid the
penalty, if possible. Only a fool would do otherwise.
}
}> Is that why they now attempt to conceal the vans by the use of terrain
}> (e.g. the Malahat), or by parking a car in front with the hood up, or
}> even by putting netting over the flash unit?
} I've never seen these
That's the idea!
} -- but surely they still get identified on radio
}traffic reports or in general advisories?
Not by the cops, they don't.
}> Ten clicks, which is about as rigorous as they dare, so far, although
}> they have publicly stated that they may eventually go to zero tolerance.
}> Seeing as they quickly abandoned all the other self-imposed restrictions
}> they used to sell the idea, I wouldn't hold my breath.
} However, it's not 'over-zealous' now, as is your claim.
10km/hr is 'over-zealous', when you consider that the speed limits are
artificially low to begin with, for the most part.
}> Actually, it does. Accepting responsibility for behaviour encompasses
}> good, as well as bad behaviour. My driving behaviour has led to a long
}> history of uneventful driving (apart from the odd ticket), and I accept
}> that my behaviour has led to that result. Should I one day take a silly
}> risk and harm myself or someone else as a result, I will accept the
}> consequences of that, too.
} Excellent. Why then do you want to get out of this ticket -- which is
}no different to the earlier received tickets -- on a technicality?
Take this thread to a responsible adult and get them to explain it to
you.
Dave 2
> Well, actually "loitering" is deemed as "without valid purpose" --
> that's why bus stops are exempt. Window shopping would likely be seen as
> being with valid purpose and therefore excluded.
This will not work. The government has employed "Photo Loitering" cameras,
all you will recieve in the mail is a picture of yourself engaged in the act
of loitering . To you, it may appear that you are window-shopping in the
photograph, but as Steve noted earlier, window-shopping is *not* an acceptable
defence in loitering cases. As far as the government is concered, a mere
picture of you on the street with the word "loitering" in computer generating
lettering at the bottom of the photo is de fact proof of your guilt. Sure,
you have the right to challenge your photo loitering ticket in court, but as
soon as the judge hears the phrase "window-shopping", he is allowed no
discretion with regard to sentancing; he must find you guilty. Please pay at
the door.
:)