So there are some jerks on the road, and we know it -- they tailgate, they move faster than traffic, they zig zag in and out of lanes, etc.
These people DESERVE to be ticketed and fined.
But I believe the majority of motorists who are pursued by police are just average people who truly do not intend to do any harm to anyone.
Someone going 70 in a 65 when all the other cars are doing 70 in a 65 is hardly a danger to society, and hardly a bad person. He is technically breaking the law, but his actions hardly compare to the tailgating hot-head.
Similarly, someone who parks outside a building for 60 seconds to drop something off and gets a ticket is breaking the law, but is hardly a bad person.
In short, we all do these things.
To that end, wouldn't it be cool to set up a "traffic charity court" where you bring your case in front of some mock judges who work for the charity. They judge your "case" from a perspective of reasonableness and personal character (the assumption would be that you did break the law) and if you seem like a good guy who got pursued by the police for a really trivial, petty reason, the charity will fund your court fight.
Even if the charity loses most of its cases, if enough of them were brought (i.e. the charity had a large enough bankroll), it would clog up the court system and tie up police officers testifying all the time.
This would then in turn make the police think twice about pulling over a regular dude going a bit over the speed limit, or a guy who's parked wrong for a few seconds to drop something off, or someone who's meter just expired a minute ago...
... and force them to concentrate on the drunk teenagers, the angry tailgaters, and other people who are truly dangerous on the road.
What do you think?
These people DESERVE to be ticketed and fined.
But I believe the majority of motorists who are pursued by police are just average people who truly do not intend to do any harm to anyone.
Someone going 70 in a 65 when all the other cars are doing 70 in a 65 is hardly a danger to society, and hardly a bad person. He is technically breaking the law, but his actions hardly compare to the tailgating hot-head.
Similarly, someone who parks outside a building for 60 seconds to drop something off and gets a ticket is breaking the law, but is hardly a bad person.
In short, we all do these things.
To that end, wouldn't it be cool to set up a "traffic charity court" where you bring your case in front of some mock judges who work for the charity. They judge your "case" from a perspective of reasonableness and personal character (the assumption would be that you did break the law) and if you seem like a good guy who got pursued by the police for a really trivial, petty reason, the charity will fund your court fight.
Even if the charity loses most of its cases, if enough of them were brought (i.e. the charity had a large enough bankroll), it would clog up the court system and tie up police officers testifying all the time.
This would then in turn make the police think twice about pulling over a regular dude going a bit over the speed limit, or a guy who's parked wrong for a few seconds to drop something off, or someone who's meter just expired a minute ago...
... and force them to concentrate on the drunk teenagers, the angry tailgaters, and other people who are truly dangerous on the road.
What do you think?
Facebook
Twitter