Actual phone call yesterday:
Me: Honey, I've got some good news and some bad news.
Mark: Bad news first.
Me: A photo radar speeding ticket from Tempe came in the mail today.
Mark (interrupting): It was me, on my way back from the Salsa Challenge Wrap Up party. It was after we switched cars, I was driving your van.
Me (stupefied): Um, no. That was the good news, it was me in the van on my way to the same party. There's a photo.
(Then I flip through the mail more carefully and discover Mark's photo on ANOTHER SPEEDING TICKET FROM THE SAME DAY, ON THE SAME ROAD, IN THE SAME CAR.)
Me and Mark in unison: Oh, dear.
13 comments:
Bummer. That's crazy!
One speeding ticket: $x
A second speeding ticket: $x
Discovering how uniquely in-tune you are with your spouse (via traffic photo enforcement): Priceless
This BLOWS! I plan to fight it. That is, unless I can avoid payment by ignoring them. Which, according to several reputable chat rooms, actually works.
Yes, reputable chat rooms, Mark.
This is hilarious.
Mark, first let me say, I'm happy to support you in your fight. But how on Earth do you plan on winning? I'm just curious what your defense stragegy will be.
Do let us know if the ignoring approach works.
Yuck! Sorry to hear that! Crazy!
Too funny. At least you can't be mad with one another.
Too funny. At least you can't be mad with one another.
If you go to court the company that actually owns and operates the photo radar will send a representative (its not a police officer or any other state employee) that will act as a witness against you and submit various pieces for evidence, like your driving record, the photos, etc. Here's my defense. Arizona law stipulates it is illegal to drive at a speed that is unreasonable and imprudent, so far, it does not define what that means. The complainant was not present at the scene and therefore may not opine whether or not I was driving at an unreasonable and imprudent speed. They were not able to evaluate the weather, road conditions, or traffic.
To this I think they can respond by citing that I drove faster than 75% of cars that passed by five minutes before or five minutes after my ticket. My response is that 1) a mere statistic does not define reasonable and prudent and 2) of course you would expect everybody to slow down when they see the camera and the speed of other cars over a 20ft stretch of road is not a good indicator of the statistical dispersion over say one block.
I think here the judge could say case law shows driving over the speed limit is unreasonable. I will then point out that the complainant receives a percentage of my fine as a fee (or commission) and that they are obviously motivated to prove my guilt. How do I know that their machines are calibrated and functioning properly? How can we verify that the speed they show is accurate? The complainant wasn't present to verify. Are their machines (more importantly, is the one that photographed me) regularly maintained and evaluated by a disinterested third party? Can they submit proof of their claim? I think the mere presence of doubt should be enough to dismiss the charges.
My fall back will be to ask the judge to reduce the amount of the fine by the fee that would be paid to this private company.
What do you all think? I'm still looking to see what campaign contributions this private company made. And if I see any...so help me.
P.S. Kate, does your husband want to represent me?
Well, it looks to me like you've got a formidable argument prepared. It never hurts to roll the dice, and the worst possible outcome is that they reduce the fine a bit (that's my guess, at least).
And you may score further bonus points by getting a laugh from the judge when he hears the whole story...
That just funny! I am sorry!!
I JUST GOT SERVED.
It makes me sick. I can't believe I answered the door.
Post a Comment