Should I fight this ticket?

[imjeff]

One man's "conspiracy" is another man's reality. There are thousands of laws on the books that leave too much subjectivity. Years ago a reporter asked a congressman "why do you guys write laws in language only lawyers can decipher?" He answered "because we're lawyers". Subjective and outdated law is just waiting for abuse.

[Cape Codder]

You can buck the system all you want. I'm going sailing. The laws being discussed in this thread are window tint and tailamp covers. Tint is allowed to a certain percent for safety reasons. A dark tinted window is hard to see out of at night as well as downright scary for a LEO doing a traffic stop. Tailamp covers are subjective so to draw the line to what is safe they just say no. If you feel this is a violation to your rights so be it. I see it as common sense. These laws are not designed to create problems but to prevent them.

[anthony1536]

i feel like this, if the cover say they meet dot rules and the truck passed inspection with them on fight it. i live in north carolina and they are no problem here. if you decide to fight it, talk to a lawer and make sure you know the traffic laws and any loopholes there may be that can help you. good luck and let us know what you decide to do and how it turns out.

[Jeepwm69]

Originally Posted by Cape Codder

You can buck the system all you want. I'm going sailing. The laws being discussed in this thread are window tint and tailamp covers. Tint is allowed to a certain percent for safety reasons. A dark tinted window is hard to see out of at night as well as downright scary for a LEO doing a traffic stop. Tailamp covers are subjective so to draw the line to what is safe they just say no. If you feel this is a violation to your rights so be it. I see it as common sense. These laws are not designed to create problems but to prevent them.

I was looking at the broader picture. We have so damn many laws in this country now, most of which cause more problems than they solve, that it's impossible to take a dump without breaking one. In the meantime, there is always someone waiting to write a ticket to generate a few more dollars to fund the bloated and ineffcient local/state/federal government.

Those tail light covers, while certainly not my cup of tea, don't keep one from seeing the brake lights, so this was a revenue generating ticket, and nothing more.

On window tint, fine, you want to make it illegal based on safety/ visibility reasons. That means THE COPS CAN'T HAVE IT EITHER!

[El conquistador]

Honestly, the covers "cover" half of the surface of the light area. How can you say that it doesn't affect the light output? I don't know how you'd argue that successfully with a judge.

[Cape Codder]

I havn't paid a traffic ticket since 1987 when I got radared at 10 over in Del. I was guilty and paid the fine. If there are so many laws designed to produce income how come I have gone almost 30 years for free?

[Jeepwm69]

Originally Posted by El conquistador

Honestly, the covers "cover" half of the surface of the light area. How can you say that it doesn't affect the light output? I don't know how you'd argue that successfully with a judge.

Law (again subjectively) says " lighted rear lamp
or lamps, exhibiting a red light plainly visible from a distance of
five hundred feet to the rear".

"Light output"? Where in the law does it say anything about light output? Those covers don't cover up much of the lens. You going to write a ticket for someone with no cover who has a dim light due to a bad ground?

Plainly visible to whom? Me, my 10 year old with perfect eyesight, or my 78 year old father?

THAT is why I would fight that ticket.

Cape Codder, you've gotten lucky. It's that simple. Just because YOU've gotten lucky doesn't make what I said untrue.

Like you, I don't get tickets. I drive under the speed limit to keep my MPG up. I even wear my seatbelt like a good little subject, even though that is a totally BS law designed to, you guessed it, raise revenue. No helmet laws for motorcycles in Arkansas, but you have to wear a seatbelt.

The slimebag legislators slid that one under the radar as a secondary offense, meaning you couldn't be ticketed for it unless you had been pulled over for another reason. Then they amended it after a few years to be a primary offense. The ticket is $25, but the locals can add another $20 for city and $25 for county fines for it. Guess what MY local PD does? They sit around writing tickets for seatbelts, and collect their revenue.

Tell me again how not wearing a seatbelt hurts anyone other than the person who made the choice to not wear one? I wore them long before either law was put into place, but if someone chooses NOT to wear one, why should they be forced to do so? Oh yeah. Great for collecting revenue.

A simple search will show revenue traps all over this country, from red light cameras with reduced yellow light time, to speed traps in tiny spots on the map

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/09/us/ham...da-corruption/

I'm not saying all police are bad guys. It's a one of the professions I have most respected over the years, but it's changing, and not for the good. As with everything, in the end it's all about money.

[95 S_Trucker]

These laws will vary state to state. In PA, its black and white.


(f) Illumination, Except headlamps, Fog Lamps,
and Auxiliary driving Lamps - A vehicle
speci fied under this subchapter shall be
equipped with parking lamps, stop lamps, tail
lamps, turn signal lamps and hazard warning
lamps designed for that specific function, which
under normal atmospheric con ditions shall be
capable of being seen and distinguished during
nighttime operation at a distance of 500 feet.
See 75 Pa.C.S. §4303(b)—(d).
(1) Stop lamps, turn signals and hazard warning
lamps shall be visible at dis tance of 100 feet
during normal sunlight.
(2) Rear lamps shall be lighted whenever head
lamps, fog lamps or auxiliary driving lamps
are in operation.
(3) A vehicle specified under this subchapter
shall be equipped with hazard warning
lamps unless the lamps were not in cluded
as original equipment.
(4) The turn signals shall have a frequency of
flash between 60-120 flashes per minute.
(g) Condition and Position of Lamps - Lamps
shall be properly fastened; direct light properly;
be of a color not contrary to Tables II-IV and not
be so obstructed by a screen, bar, auxiliary
equipment or a device as to obscure, change
the color of or obstruct beam.



The seatbelt law is a very controversial topic here in PA too. Here is my stance on it. If you are careless about your life, Will you be careless about someone else's?


And I believe all Motorcyclists should wear helmets too.

[Jeepwm69]

Originally Posted by 95 S_Trucker

These laws will vary state to state. In PA, its black and white.


(f) Illumination, Except headlamps, Fog Lamps,
and Auxiliary driving Lamps - A vehicle
speci fied under this subchapter shall be
equipped with parking lamps, stop lamps, tail
lamps, turn signal lamps and hazard warning
lamps designed for that specific function, which
under normal atmospheric con ditions shall be
capable of being seen and distinguished during
nighttime operation at a distance of 500 feet.
See 75 Pa.C.S. §4303(b)—(d).
(1) Stop lamps, turn signals and hazard warning
lamps shall be visible at dis tance of 100 feet
during normal sunlight.
(2) Rear lamps shall be lighted whenever head
lamps, fog lamps or auxiliary driving lamps
are in operation.
(3) A vehicle specified under this subchapter
shall be equipped with hazard warning
lamps unless the lamps were not in cluded
as original equipment.
(4) The turn signals shall have a frequency of
flash between 60-120 flashes per minute.
(g) Condition and Position of Lamps - Lamps
shall be properly fastened; direct light properly;
be of a color not contrary to Tables II-IV and not
be so obstructed by a screen, bar, auxiliary
equipment or a device as to obscure, change
the color of or obstruct beam.



The seatbelt law is a very controversial topic here in PA too. Here is my stance on it. If you are careless about your life, Will you be careless about someone else's?


And I believe all Motorcyclists should wear helmets too.

In that case, I think the law is clear, and had I been ticketed for it, I would pay the ticket. That is NOT the case the OP stated.

If one think the law is unjust, fight to have the law changed.

As far as seatbelts are concerned, I think your argument makes absolutely no sense. If someone is careless, they are careless. They might click it to keep from getting a ticket, but putting a seatbelt on in no way makes one a better driver.

As far as I'm concerned, all seatbelt laws do is raise revenue for bureaucrats to squander, and keep stupid people alive instead of letting natural selection clean the gene pool. Same with helmets. If someone is too stupid to wear one, that's THEIR decision, and THEIR right to ride without one. If one is hurt without a belt or a helmet, and doesn't have insurance, no one should be required to treat that person.

The government is not a babysitter. In a free country people should be free to make their own choices, and deal with the consequences of their choices.

Personal responsibility.

I will say this. State laws do vary from place to place, and using Kalifornia as an example, you couldn't pay me enough to live there. Same with most of the Northeast. Down here in The South our laws are pretty relaxed for the most part when it comes to such things, and I like it that way.

[TheBlueBomber]

Originally Posted by Jeepwm69

In that case, I think the law is clear, and had I been ticketed for it, I would pay the ticket. That is NOT the case the OP stated.

If one think the law is unjust, fight to have the law changed.

As far as seatbelts are concerned, I think your argument makes absolutely no sense. If someone is careless, they are careless. They might click it to keep from getting a ticket, but putting a seatbelt on in no way makes one a better driver.

As far as I'm concerned, all seatbelt laws do is raise revenue for bureaucrats to squander, and keep stupid people alive instead of letting natural selection clean the gene pool. Same with helmets. If someone is too stupid to wear one, that's THEIR decision, and THEIR right to ride without one. If one is hurt without a belt or a helmet, and doesn't have insurance, no one should be required to treat that person.

The government is not a babysitter. In a free country people should be free to make their own choices, and deal with the consequences of their choices.

Personal responsibility.

I will say this. State laws do vary from place to place, and using Kalifornia as an example, you couldn't pay me enough to live there. Same with most of the Northeast. Down here in The South our laws are pretty relaxed for the most part when it comes to such things, and I like it that way.

You're wrong... the government knows everything and it is our duty to serve, trust, and rely on the government....

Must obey government, must obey government. Must. Obey. Government.... Obeyyyyyyy.....


#sarcasm

[El conquistador]

The question to me is how much of your time are you ready to devote to proving yourself to be "right"? I understand sticking up for the principle of an issue, but is it worth the time? If you can talk to the DA before court, you may be able to get it dropped, but you'll may end up paying cost of court (or it works that way in NC).

[Jeepwm69]

Originally Posted by El conquistador

The question to me is how much of your time are you ready to devote to proving yourself to be "right"? I understand sticking up for the principle of an issue, but is it worth the time? If you can talk to the DA before court, you may be able to get it dropped, but you'll may end up paying cost of court (or it works that way in NC).

And THAT is exactly why things have gotten as bad as they have. People don't want to go to the trouble of standing up for what is right, so we've been in a slow slide downhill.

Society has become complacent, allowing poltiicians to run the country into the ground, all because the average person is too lazy or too "busy" to stick to principle.

Easier to pay the fine? Yep. Is the $$$ amount of the fine insignificant in the grand scheme of things? Yep. Am I going to pay a fine simply because it's easier than fighting it because fighting it inconveniences me? Hell no.

[El conquistador]

Originally Posted by Jeepwm69

And THAT is exactly why things have gotten as bad as they have. People don't want to go to the trouble of standing up for what is right, so we've been in a slow slide downhill.

Society has become complacent, allowing poltiicians to run the country into the ground, all because the average person is too lazy or too "busy" to stick to principle.

Easier to pay the fine? Yep. Is the $$$ amount of the fine insignificant in the grand scheme of things? Yep. Am I going to pay a fine simply because it's easier than fighting it because fighting it inconveniences me? Hell no.

I think that's a little overblown for an equipment violation ticket, but fight on.

I'm a dissenter by nature too, but all battles aren't worth fighting (to me at least). Of course, I probably wouldn't have done the dipsy do to try to avoid the man. As for fairness in tickets, I've had all kinds of muscle cars and sports cars over the years. I have had just 2 speeding tickets, both won in mini vans, doing absolutely nothing dangerous, but speeding none the less. I thought both were ridiculous, but I considered them lifetime achievement awards for past transgressions.

[Jeepwm69]

Originally Posted by El conquistador

I think that's a little overblown for an equipment violation ticket, but fight on.

I'm a dissenter by nature too, but all battles aren't worth fighting (to me at least). Of course, I probably wouldn't have done the dipsy do to try to avoid the man. As for fairness in tickets, I've had all kinds of muscle cars and sports cars over the years. I have had just 2 speeding tickets, both won in mini vans, doing absolutely nothing dangerous, but speeding none the less. I thought both were ridiculous, but I considered them lifetime achievement awards for past transgressions.

When I was considerably younger my dad told me "Son, you're a crusader, and while I admire that in you, today's world doesn't like crusaders. Keep doing what you think is right, just remember you're gonna suffer for it"

Words to live by.

I raced around in my youth, got a few speeding tickets, never fought one because I was alwasy speeding when I got the ticket.

Age has slowed me down, mainly because I get a lot more MPG going the speed limit!

[Cape Codder]

I raced around in my youth, got a few speeding tickets, never fought one because I was alwasy speeding when I got the ticket.

Age has slowed me down, mainly because I get a lot more MPG going the speed limit!

X2 I never got a ticket I didn't earn

[donthekawguy]

Just get to know the cops and they will let you slide. lol I work at a hospital and know almost every cop from all the towns around including county and a couple of staters. Last year I got pulled over by a county guy for no tail lights, 37 in a 25 and loud exhaust. He let me go but I had to call my son to follow me home so no one would rear end me. If I didn't know the cop I would have had some serious tickets. lol

[Old Truck Man]

I drove semi for more than 40 years. and the cops and Dot where always trying to find new ways to generate revenue from the truckers. They gave you tickets for supposed safety violations and as soon as you pay the fine they let you drive away. all cops are parasites. they don't produce anything. They don't wish to prevent crime. The more crime there is the better to try & justify their taking parasite existence. It behooves the LEOs courts lawyers to make as many laws a possible and thus have a huge pool of so called criminals to rob of their hard earned money.

[IADC43]

Just to close this up on my end,
I take pride in the fact that I can usually drive anywhere anytime without stress if a LEO is behind me. If my right foot becomes lighter, I'd be much closer to that ideal LOL
I removed the covers and the tint. I still don't agree with his reasoning, but whatever.
I have hopes of getting a test piece checked, then applying some 35% tint.
Like was mentioned above, the taillights look better anyway
Thanks for your input, and points of view on this.

[Already Gone]

Back in my previous life I stopped someone for having taillight or headlite covers and if they were polite, cooperative and were willing to remove them on the spot I never wrote the ticket. However, if the wrong attitude was displayed, I would write the ticket and if the driver refused to remove the covers I would have the vehicle towed ( towing and compound fees at owners expense) to a compound to be held until the covers were removed.

[IADC43]

Originally Posted by Already Gone

Back in my previous life I stopped someone for having taillight or headlite covers and if they were polite, cooperative and were willing to remove them on the spot I never wrote the ticket. However, if the wrong attitude was displayed, I would write the ticket and if the driver refused to remove the covers I would have the vehicle towed ( towing and compound fees at owners expense) to a compound to be held until the covers were removed.

I would have liked that option better. Yeah, wrong attitude was an issue. I was asking if I could take them off and the ticket withdrawn later. Nope. Is his purpose in life to ticket these.
I'm all zen with it. Not my issue anymore.
Don't get me wrong, I know he double tapped me for the avoidance attempt. He just turned the other car loose too soon I mean, he wasn't really chasing me.

[diamondave]

Im a Minnesotian, traveling thru the great state of Iowa. As i was traveling at the posted speed limit, being passed quite frequently mind you. I was pulled over for... window tint, the officer asked me if I knew MN tint laws. Why would he ask me that? I havent the faintest idea, but told him no. I only said that to see what answer he would give me, but he told me that they were 50% front and it didn't matter anything behind the fronts. IA law is 70% front and anything goes behind them, Mn law is 50% all windows except the windshield cannot have any (Yes even factory stripe is technically illegal in the state of MN). So got the ticket and he was on his way... no further talk of anything just left me with the 127.50 ticket. I got an IA ticket, though Im a MN with a car registered in MN, for a IA offence. My windows are stock with 60% glass, I drive a mercedes with the tint option.. so not window film (I tryed to tell the officer... but he didnt really care). legal in Mn, not in Ia.

I payed the ticket, Im just 1 of the 85% of ticketed offenders from out of state. So I wont be traveling in IA anytime soon, well ever for that matter too expensive.

[likaroc13]

Originally Posted by diamondave

Im a Minnesotian, traveling thru the great state of Iowa. As i was traveling at the posted speed limit, being passed quite frequently mind you. I was pulled over for... window tint, the officer asked me if I knew MN tint laws. Why would he ask me that? I havent the faintest idea, but told him no. I only said that to see what answer he would give me, but he told me that they were 50% front and it didn't matter anything behind the fronts. IA law is 70% front and anything goes behind them, Mn law is 50% all windows except the windshield cannot have any (Yes even factory stripe is technically illegal in the state of MN). So got the ticket and he was on his way... no further talk of anything just left me with the 127.50 ticket. I got an IA ticket, though Im a MN with a car registered in MN, for a IA offence. My windows are stock with 60% glass, I drive a mercedes with the tint option.. so not window film (I tryed to tell the officer... but he didnt really care). legal in Mn, not in Ia.

I payed the ticket, Im just 1 of the 85% of ticketed offenders from out of state. So I wont be traveling in IA anytime soon, well ever for that matter too expensive.

Sounds like a bunch of BS to me!

[truckdude239]

Originally Posted by anthony1536

i feel like this, if the cover say they meet dot rules and the truck passed inspection with them on fight it. i live in north carolina and they are no problem here. if you decide to fight it, talk to a lawer and make sure you know the traffic laws and any loopholes there may be that can help you. good luck and let us know what you decide to do and how it turns out.

actally i do nc state i spections and those are suppose to fail an nc inspection tge law is no covering over any lights at all.

[1badgmc]

Originally Posted by likaroc13

Sounds like a bunch of BS to me!

Agreed. I wouldn't have paid that one.

Here in Texas, our tint laws allow for relatively dark windows. Even with that, the tint on all my vehicles pushes the legal line, and sometimes crosses it. I make sure to stay on top of Texas tint laws so I know where I stand. It is written in the Texas tint laws that driving a car with out of state registration "is a defense to the prosecution" of a window tint violation, meaning you could fight and win if you're from out of state and get a tint ticket in Texas.

Since my tint pushes Texas limits, I know it's unquestionably illegal in other states, but I have never been stopped for tint in any other state I've driven through.

[Jeepwm69]

On the "out of state" argument.

I remember driving through Van Alstyne Texas a few years back. I was clocked at about 10 over and was being passed by EVERYONE. DFW area is crazy.

Local small town cop is clocking people out on the main highway (not really even in the town) and he pulls me over.

I was polite, and he asked me if I knew I was speeding. I guess I missed the last speed limit change so I told him I'd had my cruise set and didn't see where the speed limit changed. He said OK, then wrote me a $200 ticket. At that point, I stayed civil, but I asked him if he specifically targeted out of state drivers, as I had been passed like I was sitting still for about 15 miles (from up around Sherman) by every car on the road, and was in fact, being passed by a 3/4 ton GM truck with a Texas flag Chevy Symbol on the grill, pulling a 500 gallon water trailer, lifted and running on 35's or 37's. he had to be going 15-20 MPH faster than I was, and when I saw the cop pull out I knew he was going after that truck. He kinda smirked at me and said "nope, you were speeding" and I asked him if he saw the lifted, crew cab 4wd truck pulling a 500 gallon water trailer that was passing me, going at least 15mph faster than I, when he clocked me. He said "I didn't see that one, just you."

Nope, in TX they have front tags, so I guess he was waiting on a vehicle with no tag on the front, so he nabbed me instead.

I thought "well, I was speeding" so I was just going to pay the ticket.

Then I hear about "deferred adjudication" which in Texas means you can pay MORE and they'll withold the fact that you got a ticket from the insurance company. That is extortion, and really, really pissed me off.

Add to that the red light cameras installed in the DFW area, and the fact that Texas changed the law to a civil infraction for running a red light camera so they could fine the owner of the car (that way they don't have to PROVE who the driver is), and then reduced the yellow light time to up the number of tickets....

Needless to say I was glad when my company pulled out of Texas so I didn't have to deal with the DFW crazyness anymore.

Revenue generating. We all see that there are dangers on the roads, and traffic enforcement is definitely needed, but 90% of tickets are given to generate revenue, NOT for public safety.

http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-t...es-for-profit/

http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Documents...ht_Cameras.pdf