You should always go if you can, though. You never know. You can get off on several technicalities, depending on how the cop got your speed.
Like the poster a few above where the radar gun was out of cal.
I did want to fight because I knew I did not speed 15 MPH over the speed limit. But the old saying "know when to fight the batte and when to withdraw".
I could fight and risk a big fine, court cost, other fees, PLUS higher insurance rate for a few years or I can just pick traffic school and the problem would go away. I pick the lesser of two evils. I did wish I have a camcorder on at that time.
Not true.
When given the ticket you have to sign the ticket to acknowledge that an officer believes you are infraction of something. (Still innocent at this time).
If you just pay the fine, you acknowledge that you agree you were guilty and that's that. You admitted to being guilty. Skip the court case, pay the fine. Move on with your life.
If you go to court, (still innocent) the officer will give whatever records he has [radar gun, etc. etc. etc.] then you have your chance to defend yourself. Proof that he was wrong. If your proof isn't enough then you are found guilty.
It is the same with every other court. If someone is suing you, or you were arrested for (something) you have to sign things acknowledging that you have to be in court X day for your hearing, and that you agree to be there. But you are still innocent until proven guilty.
A traffic ticket just has a shortcut if you admit your guilty (just paying the ticket) so you don't even have to go to court. You can go to court and fight it. Thus staying innocent until the officer proves your guilty. He doesn't have to do much to prove your guilty unless you can prove he is wrong. And usually the officer will have evidence of the means how he knew you were speeding, and the calibration results of the gun on said day. Him just saying "you were speeding" is also "witness testimony" for the prosecution. And yes, his word is powerful, because it is his job to uphold the law of truth and justice. (Whether or not they actually do is a whole debate itself). His position has authority to it. So his word will always be better than your word.
See my reply above. I did want to fight but rather not to risk it. Not worth the big fine and other fees AND higher insurance cost for at least 3 years. IMO traffic court = the burden is much heavy on the defender. See the bolded and underlined part of your post.
Let see: (in traffic court)
Svnla: "Your honor, I was not speeding 15 MPH over the speed limit as the officer said and I strongly believe so"
Officer: "Your honor, he did and I saw he did it because I paced him" (even he did not do that - he was in the opposite lane, turned his car around and pulled me over immediately. And this was around mid night, clear night, a few vehicles around).
Judge: (very sure he would more than likely side with the officer)
(in other court(s)): the officer/the state/government would have to have much more to convict the accused, not just the officer's words as evidences.
A lot of money is made from speed traps =
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/high-price-speed-traps-20011923 (so much for public safety bullcrap)
Anyhow, enough of my rant. What done is done. Waste of time (traffic school for several boring hours) and money (did have to pay a reduced fine but no other cost).