Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes the laws are there for a reason,to generate revenue.
If such laws are not to generate revenue,why not make there be no fine at all....LOL.
This forum in general solidifies my belief about Americans being basically sheep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soviet
There is no excuse for window tint laws. Tinted taillights? Yes. Those are dangerous, restricting visibility. Tinted windows? No excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC
Well if you logically think about it,the law makes no sense.
If the tinted windows are a danger,why is it only a danger on front windows?
If it isn't a danger,why is it a law at all?
If it is a danger,why are there exceptions for (dubious to me) medical reasons?
Also logically speaking,unless the cop can see THROUGH the door,he has no idea what is going on in the vehicle.
there are good safety reasons for tint laws on the books. for instance, have you tried to look out a window that has limo(2-5% light transmission) tint at night? even during the day it is tough. and imagine that instead of no tint, or a 4" strip on the windshield, people were allowed to use limo tint on the windshield, talk about a severe safety issue.....
there is also good reason for someone to get a fully tinted windshield, mostly dealing with people who have problems with glare but otherwise see just fine. and even then the tint is limited to a maximum of 50% light reduction, and it has to be a neutral density film like airblue.
you two need to stop being cry babies because some law is on the books, and deal with it. if you think the law is a bad law, then work to get it changed. complaining about in on an internet forum does nothing but make you look like whiners.
there are good safety reasons for tint laws on the books. for instance, have you tried to look out a window that has limo(2-5% light transmission) tint at night? even during the day it is tough. and imagine that instead of no tint, or a 4" strip on the windshield, people were allowed to use limo tint on the windshield, talk about a severe safety issue.....
there is also good reason for someone to get a fully tinted windshield, mostly dealing with people who have problems with glare but otherwise see just fine. and even then the tint is limited to a maximum of 50% light reduction, and it has to be a neutral density film like airblue.
you two need to stop being cry babies because some law is on the books, and deal with it. if you think the law is a bad law, then work to get it changed. complaining about in on an internet forum does nothing but make you look like whiners.
Except the laws are a mishmash and make no sense....otherwise you might have had some point.
hogsrus (great name, btw, considering your use of the words "wallow" & "mire"), what are the odds of MOST places with artificially low speed limits having extenuating circumstances? It's not going to be that high. Very often, the reason that speed limits are too low are for the simplest reason: revenue generation.
I actually have disagreed with much of your ranting, but I've read several articles in years past about officers being posted up in "speed traps" where they can generate the most revenue rather than in a nearby area, in their jurisdiction, which was a high risk streatch of road.
It showed me which was more important. $ or safety. (As do speeding cops)
Not saying it's the individual officers fault... But it is the way it is.
I remember getting a piece of information stating that if the state you're from doesn't have whatever violation it can be more or less ignored. For example we don't have bumper hieght requirments, you take your Louisville Donk to Virginia and they do and you get a ticket, you can ignore it. Although, this doesn't count for most federal regulations.
Extenuating circumstances....that's what I'm talking about. How could you possibly know what these circumstances are? They may be inappropriate to you but, not to me.
Like I said, are the "extenuating circumstances" legitimate or not? If they are legitimate, why don't the municipalities give people warnings instead of ticketing them? They can't possibly be expected to know those "extenuating circumstances", especially people who are passing through for the first time. So why not give warnings? Oh, yeah, because it's about having artificially low speed limits for revenue generation. That's why.
As for the argument of "well, you should have paid attention to the speed limit sign, then", have you ever noticed that sometimes you drive for a long while without encountering such a sign? Or what if you were focused on the ROAD and not the side of the road, where the signs are, since you are in unfamiliar territory and trying to orient yourself and are being careful looking at everything around you? Of course, that argument is completely lost on many, since the world is so black and white for them. Sigh.
Somehow, I can imagine you making a hard stop alongside a cop car, yelling something out the window at them like, "DONUT BREAK'S OVER, BOYS!", and then proceeding to perform a smoky burnout for a good 5 seconds before finally taking off...and bringing the car back to the dealer to wrap up the test drive.
Haha, I'd love to do that. But I never would. It would be a lot of fun, though.
Vinny, did you ever escape from a cop who was trying to pull you over for speeding? I did that once.
There's something satisfying about a well-earned speeding ticket. I really don't mind getting a ticket that I've earned.
Keyword is earned. The satisfaction that comes with that is equal to the horror, pain and deceit you feel when receiving a ticket for something you didn't do.
For the most part, out of state tickets aren't nearly as big of a deal as in state tickets. Even states that have reciprocity not all points will transfer and not all violations are necessarily enforceable, like getting a tint ticket in a state where it is illegal if you are from a state where it is legal. For the most part, you can just pay an out of state ticket and very little harm will come from it. This is also the reason why cops is given the choice will probably pick the out of state car over one from in state.
Now, here is my story. It also happens to be the one time a cop "lied" about what I did...
My friends and I live in Southern NJ. Each year we used to go camping on the Delmarva penninsula (eastern side of the Chessapeake Bay) at a place called Cherrystone (all the way at the end near the Bay Bridge). People in the area have probably heard of it as it is famous for its clams. Driving down there you spend most of the trip in Maryland and Delaware.
Coming home one year I was following my friend and we were in Maryland. The posted limit was 65 and we were doing around 72. We were passed by a line of cars with Maryland and Virginia tags that were going about 80. As they passed us, a MD Trooper pulls out of the median, drives up next to me, then between my friend and I and throws his lights on. My friend pulls over and since I wasn't sure if he had signalled to me as well, I pulled over too.
Trooper goes to my friends car, talks to him for a few minutes and then hands him a ticket. He then walks back to my car and asks me why I stopped. I said, when you pulled out I wasn't sure if you were signalling for me or not, so I stopped as well. He said, great, here's your ticket for going 80 in a 65.
We knew the ticket was BS and were just going to pay it, but my friend found out that two points would transfer to his NJ license and that would be an issue for him, so he wanted to go to court to fight it. I agreed to go with him for the ride and figured what the heck, I may end up saving some money too.
We head all the way back down there to what I could only describe as one of the podunkiest, podunk towns I have ever been too. No offense to anyone, but the Delmarva south of Ocean City, MD is pretty much like a third world country, at least to us. We get to the wooden court house in a town that is made up of exactly 5 streets and park.
Head inside, check in and wait for court to start. The troopers are all lined up along the one wall on a bench and the rest of us are all sitting in wooden benches in the courtroom. My friend and I were both wearing suits, which is somewhat normal for court in NJ, but everyone else kept asking us for legal advice and wanted us to represent them, lol. The judge walks in, carrying a mug of coffee and a bagel with his robes unbuttoned at the top. Sits down at the bench and throws his feet up on the desk...I was starting to regret the decision to drive down and figured we were just going to get railroaded.
Court starts and we quickly learned the system. The judge called the trooper and the defendant and asked the trooper for the relevant details. The judge then asked for a plea. If you plead guilty, the judge changed the offense to a charge with no points and only a $64 fine. If you plead not guilty, you instantly had an on the spot trial/hearing where the judge, trooper and you would discuss and plead your case. One person tried that and ended up being found guilty of the same charge that everyone else was pleading to.
My friend decides not to fight it and just plead guilty figuring he saved himself points and money and it would be worth the trip. My friend goes up and "Trooper Todd" joins him. The judge asks for details and Trooper Todd responds that it was a "laser stop and the suspect was polite and cooperative". My friend pleads guilty, gets the fine everyone was getting and sits down.
I asked my friend to see his ticket and saw that the trooper had written the same time 11:03am on both of our tickets and claimed they were laser stops. I get called up and Trooper Todd says the same thing about me that he did about my friend. The judge asks for my plea and I say "not guilty your honor".
The trial starts and the judge asks Trooper Todd to describe the stop. He states that he recorded my vehicles speed on his laser in light traffic and initiated the stop. I was polite and cooperative and the stop was routine and uneventful.
Then it was my turn to ask questions. I asked the trooper to describe to me how his laser works. He stated that it would "instant on" and record the vehicles speed and that it was last calibrated on xyz day. I then asked him if his laser could track multiple cars at the same time. He replied no, that it could only work on one car. I then asked him if he pulled over any other vehicles at the same time as me. He replied no.
I then called my friend as a witness and asked the judge to allow me to submit my friends ticket as evidence. My friend stated that he was pulled over and issued a ticket first and then the trooper went back to my car and wrote me a ticket. I pointed out to the judge that both tickets had the same date, time and location stamp and that it was impossible for Trooper Todd to have recorded my speed as well as the speed of the car in front of me. I also pointed out that the trooper perjured himself about the events of the stop when he stated that no other cars were present.
The judge sat forward, looked the trooper in the eye, said case dismissed, apologized for my inconvenience and banged his gavel. I admit, I felt like Johnny Cochrane walking out of that courtroom.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hasn't posted.
