Question about traffic ticket...

[imhotepmp]

Ok so my gf gets a ticked for running a red light.
NOTE:The issue of whether she ran the light is debatable, since the light was yellow when she crossed the intersection....

SO my question is: are there any consequences to pleading guilty/not-guilty. If she pleads not guilty but loses the trial, will it be worse than just pleading guilty and paying the fee? How will this effect her insurance? If she went to traffic school would it help? Ive never gotten a ticket before so I dont really know how this works, any help would be appreciated.

thanks

Imhotep MP

 

[BornStar]

<< NOTE:The issue of whether she ran the light is debatable, since the light was yellow when she crossed the intersection.... >>



It's technically illegal to cross an intersection when the light is yellow. You can go through it if you're on top of the intersection when it turns yellow but you're supposed to stop. I wouldn't fight the ticket, personally.

 

[MiniGolfIsFun]

Since the chances of her fighting the ticket and winning is very small, I suggest she just go to traffic school. That way at least she won't have to worry about added insurance cost and not having a point on her record.

 

[imhotepmp]

So if she goes to traffic school she wont get a point on her record??

Imhotep MP

 

[Workin']

<< It's technically illegal to cross an intersection when the light is yellow. You can go through it if you're on top of the intersection when it turns yellow but you're supposed to stop. I wouldn't fight the ticket, personally. >>

Don't know where you are from or who taught you how to drive, but in the US it is perfectly legal to enter the intersection on yellow, even if there's only 1 microsecond of yellow showing before you cross the stop line. I would fight the ticket (and have done so myself for the same violation) - however, it is your word against the citing officer's, so you have zero "leverage". The court automatically grants higher credibility to the officer, so unless you have witnesses it certainly will not be dismissed.

Then again, depending on the laws in your state and the agency that wrote the citation, the first meeting may not be in "traffic court" - it may be in the agency's prosecuting attorney's office. If that's the case, they will likely offer a plea bargain unless you are a totally rude moron or have a string of past violations. 9 times out of 10 the charge will be reduced to an offense with a slightly higher fine but no points or impact on your insurance. The main goal of traffic enforcement is revenue generation, not safety. That's a fact. So they get a little more money and you get a slight break on your insurance. Everyone is as happy as they can be in this situation.

Some states allow you to attend traffic court to remove the citation from your record. Some do not. CA and TX have let me slide by taking driver safety or whatever. WI does not (but court is generally easy there).

If you end up in court, then the judge may or may not be lenient. Depends on how convincing you can be and your past record, if any. Nearly always you get some kind of break just for showing up, at least that's been my experience.

 

[BornStar]

Michigan's law

It's large, so don't attempt it if you're on dialup. Flip to page 63 for the info. Here's the quote:



<< You are required to stop on a yellow light. If you cannot stop safely, do not speed up but drive cautiously through the intersection. >>

 

[Thegonagle]

Actually, I think whether you ran a red is a fuzzy line that's not well defined in some cities, counties, and states.

The cop may have pulled her over for doing something dangerous.

When I hear "running a red light," I think dangerous. There are still lights operating in cities all over the country where it is dangerous to enter the intersection when the light is clearly still yellow, so a ticket might still be written.

 

[Workin']

<< You are required to stop on a yellow light. If you cannot stop safely, do not speed up but drive cautiously through the intersection. >>

Sounds like you have to but don't have to. I'm a licensed traffic engineer in WI, CA, MI, and TX, and all the traffic signals are designed to allow safe passage on the yellow. In fact EVERY traffic signal is designed with an "all red" period of at least 1 second and up to more than 4 seconds whenever the right-of-way changes from one direction to the other. This is because there is always a time during the cycle of the traffic signal when a driver traveling at the legal speed can neither stop safely before the light turns red nor travel through the intersection before the yellow expires. This is called the "dilema zone" and while there are strategies to reduce the zone it can never be completely eliminated.

 

[IJump]

<< You are required to stop on a yellow light. If you cannot stop safely, do not speed up but drive cautiously through the intersection. >>



The answer to that is: "I did not feel that I could safely stop in the distance that I had before entering the intersection." The officer can not determine how you feel in your car at the time and if handled properly, you should be able to get it dismissed.


Just my opinion. You might also want to try to talk to the judge or prosecutor prior to the court date, that sometimes helps.

 

[HappyPuppy]

In CA you can enter the intersection on a green or yellow light. If you have not fully crossed the intersection before the light turns red then you are guilty of running a red light. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule.

 

[luvya]

I think the point will still show on your record, but after 18 month of clear record driving, they will waive the point.
Of course, this is just my opinion, I could be wrong

 

[QTPie]

It's hard to argue your case without a solid evidence or a witness. The judge will more likely trust the officer.

About the ticket, if you decide going to court, you will have about 30 seconds to talk to the judge.
Basically, he'll call your name, then read the document which something like this: On xx day, it is said that you were running the red light, do you plead guity, not guity or no contest?

1. If you admit that you're guilty, you'll pay the fine, which can be bargain with the judge, something like you're student, dont have money, etc. He can reduce the price, and even let you make monthly payment. In CA, fine is $300 for running red line, stop sign, turning right on red without making a complete stop (I got ticket at stop sign once). This will remain on your driving record for 3 years

2. If you say that you're not guilty, he'll set you another court date at a difference court room in which you'll be there with the officer to express your situation. The judge will listen to both of you and make a decision. But most of the time you'll lose.

3. No contest. You don't admit nor deny that you made a mistake. However, you'll pay the fine same as you plead guilty.

4. "Traffic school, your Honor!" This is what your gf should tell the judge if she didn't go to the traffice school in the last 18 months.

Just right after she hears "guity, not guity or no contest?" from the judge, she should just say "Traffic school, your Honor!". Don't need to say anything else since the judge doesnt have much time. He must go through about 60 people within 2 hours.

She then has to pay the fine (can't bargain the price in this case, $300 firm), then she goes to the office next door to register for a class which will cost about $30 (or that what I paid) in addition to $300 fine and choose a date, either 2 evening nights of 4 hours or one 8 hours class on Saturday. She must be there on time and remain in the class until the end when she'll be given the certificate of completion. Why would she go for all that trouble? Because it won't show in her record if she completes the "driver education course".

My friend had got a ticket at stop sign and he was unable to attend and reschedule the class, his insurance premium has increased $100/yr (from $700 to $800)

Good luck to you!

 

[kermalou]

do a google search for ticket assassin....

for california courts, it taught me a good lesson

1. fight the ticket by asking for trial by decleration. ( you write your side and the cop (about 50% of the time) writes his/hers. If the cop fails to write a letter, you win.
2. if you are found guilty, you can still appeal that decision by then going to court. so you have two chances of fighting the ticket.

you increase your chances of winning the case by those acts. but, if you are lazy and don't want to do that I have a couple of words for that.....

"TRAFFIC SCHOOL YOUR HONOR" those are the only four words you need to say.

 

[BornStar]

<< In fact EVERY traffic signal is designed with an "all red" period of at least 1 second and up to more than 4 seconds whenever the right-of-way changes from one direction to the other. This is because there is always a time during the cycle of the traffic signal when a driver traveling at the legal speed can neither stop safely before the light turns red nor travel through the intersection before the yellow expires. This is called the "dilema zone" and while there are strategies to reduce the zone it can never be completely eliminated. >>



Um...yeah...I think I going to go ahead and kinda...disagree with you there... In my hometown, Midland, MI, 90% of the traffic lights do not contain the "all red" period. Explanation?

 

[BornStar]

<< In CA you can enter the intersection on a green or yellow light. If you have not fully crossed the intersection before the light turns red then you are guilty of running a red light. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. >>



It appears that people need to be reacquainted with the law. California's laws on traffic signals are here.



<< A yellow signal light warns you that the red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, you should stop, if you can do so safely. >>



It's no wonder so many people run red lights.

 

[kermalou]

we in california have perfected the art of stop signs and red lights, it is called the California Roll.

you just creep up until the sign/signal, if safe you cross. there is no need to actually "stop"

 

[toant103]

hate going to court. Chance of winning are very slim. It's not a democracy.


I got fined $50 for riding my bike w/o a headlight. didn't even know it's a law. (Speed bike)

 

[Jzero]

<< Um...yeah...I think I going to go ahead and kinda...disagree with you there... In my hometown, Midland, MI, 90% of the traffic lights do not contain the "all red" period. Explanation? >>


The explanation is that your town is apparently about 20 years behind in upgrading those 90% of your signals. I have never seen a light that didn't have an all-red period.

Of course it's really unnecessary, b/c you're not supposed to stomp the gas the second the light changes, you're supposed to LOOK and make sure the intersection is clear of people who ran the light.

 

[rahvin]

<< Don't know where you are from or who taught you how to drive, but in the US it is perfectly legal to enter the intersection on yellow, even if there's only 1 microsecond of yellow showing before you cross the stop line. >>



As a

<< licensed traffic engineer in WI, CA, MI, and TX >>

you should know that every state has different laws. It doesn't frankly matter if the signal is designed to allow "sneakers" to clear the intersection for safety. As someone that should have experience relating to DOT's and local government you should be fully aware that laws are written by politicians irregardless of proper design considerations. You should also know that every state writes their own laws, there are NO national traffic laws.

 

[Workin']

Yes, rahvin, you are VERY smart, thanks for pointing out the obvious - are you a traffic engineer, too? - and while there are no "national" traffic laws the basic gist is generally the same, and must be - otherwise interstate commerce would grind to a halt, and there would be wholesale slaughter on the roads if the basic ideas were not the same. There are national guidelines, of course there are exceptions and municipalities can make up some of their own rules, that's whay certain communities are well-known "speed traps" etc.

<< In my hometown, Midland, MI, 90% of the traffic lights do not contain the "all red" period. Explanation? >>

I'm guessing that either you are the traffic engineer for Midland and are clueless, or else you did not go out and actually verify 90% of the signals and are just talking out of your ass. In any case, if you are correct about your town, I would suggest writing to whomever is in charge of such things because if they don't have an all-red period as required by the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices they are exposed to a great deal of legal liability due to their negligence. If someone is killed or seriously injured at a signalized intersection and they can show the signal was not timed following the usual and common professional practice as dictated by the MMUTCD then guess what? They are negligent and at least partially liable for any damages.

 

[BornStar]

<< I'm guessing that either you are the traffic engineer for Midland and are clueless, or else you did not go out and actually verify 90% of the signals and are just talking out of your ass. >>



None of the above, thank you. I'm just a normal resident. However, if you would like, I can very easily go out and verify that. I can think of two lights in the city that have that "all red" period. There are also quite a few lights where I am now (Lafayette, IN) that don't have that period.

 

[Huz]

In WA state last year I got a nasty 53 in a 25 speeding ticket. I was not going even close to that fast, so I tried to fight it. I contested it, got a court date, and showed up with diagrams, sketches, etc; I was ready to present my defense. Apparently in Washington you are required to subpoena the officer who gave you the ticket in order for him to be there in person. End result: officer wasn't there, his report is "gospel" in the eyes of the judge, and I got the book thrown at me. I paid a $500 fine and now my insurance is $250 a month.

Lesson learned: if you do plan to contest a traffic ticket, know the statute, the "rules" of such a proceeding in your state, and make sure your argument is rock solid.

 

[Workin']

[qThere are also quite a few lights where I am now (Lafayette, IN) that don't have that period.[/i] >>

Again, I'll say (except substitiute "Indiana" for Michigan":

<< if you are correct about your town, I would suggest writing to whomever is in charge of such things because if they don't have an all-red period as required by the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices they are exposed to a great deal of legal liability due to their negligence. If someone is killed or seriously injured at a signalized intersection and they can show the signal was not timed following the usual and common professional practice as dictated by the MMUTCD then guess what? They are negligent and at least partially liable for any damages. >>

Let me stress that the all-red period is NOT optional under any conditions in any state. To omit that phase is a violation of the standards of care required for the practice of professional engineering and the operation of such a public facility. Whenever an entity resopnsible for the design OR operation of such a system fails to perform to the accepted standard of care they are open to unlimited liability for their negligence. End of story. So if in fact your municipality is operating without the necessary clearance intervals (I won't argue that they may or may not be doing so, there's no point to that) that would be a potential problem for them.

 

[QTPie]

<<we in california have perfected the art of stop signs and red lights, it is called the California Roll.>>

hmm... I thought Califonia Roll is a sushi

 

[rahvin]

<< << if you are correct about your town, I would suggest writing to whomever is in charge of such things because if they don't have an all-red period as required by the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices they are exposed to a great deal of legal liability due to their negligence. If someone is killed or seriously injured at a signalized intersection and they can show the signal was not timed following the usual and common professional practice as dictated by the MMUTCD then guess what? They are negligent and at least partially liable for any damages. >>

Let me stress that the all-red period is NOT optional under any conditions in any state. To omit that phase is a violation of the standards of care required for the practice of professional engineering and the operation of such a public facility. Whenever an entity resopnsible for the design OR operation of such a system fails to perform to the accepted standard of care they are open to unlimited liability for their negligence. End of story. So if in fact your municipality is operating without the necessary clearance intervals (I won't argue that they may or may not be doing so, there's no point to that) that would be a potential problem for them. >>



I guess I would have to re-read my MUTCD because nowhere in the federal MUTCD does it mention signal timing. In fact the HCM is one of the federal guidebooks for signal timing design. But with all design manuals in transportation engineering the federal manuals are simply suggestions to be used with the caveat that engineering judgement should prevail. Of course it is proper design to include an all red phase, but it's not a given that a municipality or state agency would lose a liability lawsuit when they have a law on the books making it illegal to cross the intersection on yellow. Of course it would depend on the Jury and in most cases they would probably lose but I'm not silly enough to presume that I know the statutes of all the states/municipalities in the union. Legislatures can of course limit their own liability.