Modern Vespa

True true and it is a very personal thing. The personal attacks are hard to deal with as a moderator I would think. What someone sees as personal attack another person sees as modern language. I mean black guys call each other "Dog" and "Nigger" and mean it affectionately (I think). "F... You" can be a term of endearment in some groups. I hate it but I learned you have to look through the language to the person to get the meaning sometimes. However as a moderator you have a difficult job to keep it interesting without letting it degenerate into a teen age swearing forum of abuse.

How do you decide? I recommend half a bottle of Johnnie Walker to help.

I also recommend you share the other half with me.

Last night I read this thread and the one about "police haters" while staying at a hotel in Chico, California. This morning on the way to the airport, I received a citation from the California Highway Patrol for driving my rental car 74 mph in a 55 zone on U.S. Highway 70 south of Oroville. She was parked at the end of a short passing lane and busted me as tried to get past a truck before the lane ended. Like shooting fish in a barrel. I didn't say a word throughout the entire episode.

I got on the airplane and saw this in the SkyMall catalogue. It seems to be one big internet headlight flash.

http://www.phantomalert.com/

I got pulled over some years ago for flashing my headlights to warn other drivers of a speed trap. The cop said, "Hey, Paul Revere, knock it off!' And this was years before anyone know what "revenue enhancement" was all about!

Personally I let most stuff just slide by - I'm offended by pretty well nothing at all except posts by people banging personal drums ad nauseam, posts by spammers (there are still a few now and again), and am appalled by "Things I love" type threads that are taken seriously!

I dont actually know a lot about US traffic enforcement. In Australia the police forces are quite big and state based so within each state (6 of them and 2 territories) you get uniformity. I dont know how you can get on in the US with a different authority in every town or city and then county sheriffs and then state troopers and then texas rangers and then Wyatt Earp and whatever. I guess it works but it seems an absolute dogs breakfast to me.

We also have a national road rules legislation which superseded all state road laws ten years ago or so. The only changes state to state are regional speed limits and the levels of fines. Can vary enormously. Northern Territory gives about $50 for low level speeding with no loss of licence points while NSW and Victoria are 10 times that with loss of points.

We have usually dedicated traffic sections and other uniform cops only give tickets when they see something blatant or are told to because of the holiday blitz or some safety operation.

Traffic cops are usually a different breed and are dedicated to the traffic enforcement thing. Some of them just love it and some do it because they find it easier and write tickets to keep the job.

I have never liked it and would prefer to chase criminals. But I understand it must be done. Are the people busting you for flashing lights dedicated traffic police? I cant see general duties police giving a whoop one way or the other and also far too busy to care.

As for revenue raising the cop giving a ticket gets nothing for it. IN UK and Aus the money goes to general government revenue and the police dont ever see it. Is it different in the US or are the people talking about revenue raising on an urban myth? Governments want the revene but the cop couldnt care less I would think.

Exactly. I'll take you over the distracted parent with young children in the car any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Congrats to Muni...

I think he'll know about this first hand...

Don't mean to hi-jack, but think this is right in line with the OP's post. I can attest that the state of FL has an active program in place, issuing tickets to motorists on this statute (316.2397.7) specifically to intimidate and punish motorists. It's a violation of free speech, and due process. Over 2400 tickets have been issued since a 2005 case where a Seminole County judge ordered a case dismissed because that statute didn't apply. That's 1.5 tickets A DAY in FL. On something the courts have said is not legal.

Okay I don't care who flashes headlights and who does not. FYI Judges don't make law however. For a judges decision to become "case law" it has to be a decision that is accepted as case law by the law community. It is usually only the highest law courts who make decisions that become case law. I don't really understand the US legal system so someone can advise me on the system if they know better. What should happen if the State wants this to continue is to re-word the legislation making it obvious as to its intent. However if the legislature were not in favour they would have already told the police via their state Attorney General that they should not be applying the law in this fashion. Probably the state wants to keep getting the revenue from speed fines and also want to keep the road toll down. They probably wont be more specific in the headlight flashing law because they are not losing a lot of cases on the flashing.

When I was in law school I was driving home from GA to FL for the Christmas holidays. I saw a blatant speed trap on the turnpike and flashed my lights towards oncoming traffic. Another cop was on the road behind the first cop who was staked out in the speed trap and he saw me do it. He cut across the median so fast he almost hit my car (I was in the #1 (= left) lane). He pulled me over and gave me the impeding justice speech and said he was going to issue me a ticket. I pushed back and asked him specifically which FL statute he was referring to that I violated and didn't I just slow down more people with a headlight flash than he could with a ticket? He couldn't answer the statue question and then let me go with a warning. That was 1980...so I think the laws have gotten tighter than that.

Here is a solution...if your scooter's lighting system will allow it:

1. Turn your headlights on and off, don't flash your brights. It has the same effect for getting attention and there is nothing illegal about turning your headlights on and off.

2. On an undivided highway try taking your left hand and pushing it up and down toward the pavement, as in - "slow down!". Most people get what that means and it's not "illegal" either.

Both have worked for me and I haven't been pulled over for a ticket (like this anyway) for 30 years.

Well, I don't flash my lights unless there is an accident or an obstruction in the road. As far as speeders, screw 'em. If they want to play, let them pay. Speeding is a risk that is a personal choice, as is driving close to the speed limit. I worry about my own skin. Let the others worry about theirs.

Surely there is a place where you US people can get a definitive answer about this question in your State. I know who to ask in Australia but dont know about the US. Someone in the forum must know. When you get your reply from the State AG or whoever you will know for sure. If its a go on flashing lights then keep a copy on you to show the police. It would be a case of wrongful prosecution against the police officer if he proceeded to give a ticket. His best option would be to take your details and investigate the authenticity of the letter. If it was a forgery then he could proceed on that basis and if real he would have to drop it. Forget freedom of speech bla bla. There are plenty of people in jail who say they were acting on a principal that the State wont recognise. That is a question for the Supreme Court. If its an enforceable law your next option is to lobby your State Government to get it repealed via petition.

It's been 50 years since I was issued my only traffic citation, but back then, the statute was cited on the ticket. I realize things might have changed. If the police officer could not cite a statute, how could he issue a ticket. Was the "warning" verbal, or one of those written "warnings"? If it was written, wouldn't that "warning" cite the statute you were being "warned" about? Otherwise, how could you know what you are being "warned" to stop doing?

I think that he knew he couldn't issue me a ticket and was just trying to keep me from warning others. At the time there was no law in FL that I knew of that flashing your brights was "illegal" but since I was interrupting their speed trap he wasn't too happy. He looked like a new highway patrolman and the speed trap was pretty obvious (over a hill and behind an overpass post). He ended up giving me a verbal warning (useless) because I called him on the statute citing. That's pretty much all he could do. He claimed what I was doing was illegal but couldn't prove it. Just a scare tactic.

I'd PM you about this...but...

AL the system has changed. Used to be states didn't have reciprocity when you got a ticket. Now there's a database where everything you get goes in it and if you live in Kansas and don't pay a Cali parking ticket you'll have to before you can renew your Kansas DL. Also written warning can act like a ticket (o my friend from MA says). Apparently if you get enough of them insurance co's look at them as real tickets.

Never argue the law with a law enforcement officer. Oftentimes, they make it up as they go along. The proper response is to act contrite, and "Yessir, no Sir, three bags full, Sir!" If you get a ticket, argue your case in court.

Judy-

We've only had the good fortune to live here for the last 5 years. During our 35 years of military service, we got to live in quite a few states, so reciprocity is no stranger. Actually, I think reciprocity's a good idea.

I agree that they sometimes go by assumptions or misinformation and that most of the time the proper venue for arguing is in court.

However, it's not always reasonable to go to court. For example, if I were stopped for flashing my lights in a rental car in Florida and lived in Oregon going to court would be ridiculous. It'd also be ridiculous to pay for a silly ticket. Sometimes it makes sense to make sure the officer knows that you think he's mistaken and that you intend to fight the point in court.

It's also true that they're supposed to cite a specific law that you've supposedly broken. They're definitely not supposed to make up laws. Somebody's going to have to come up with a specific statute eventually, so might as well ask for it at the stop.

Thanks for the follow-up. Nice to see the little guy win one for a change.

Going to court is sometimes mandated by state law, even if you want to plead guilty. If you don't show or refuse to pay the fine, a bench warrant would be issued. Most states have reciprocal agreements.

Ridiculous to pay for a "silly ticket"? Well, for example, I worked from 3pm to 11pm last night. Around 8pm, I stopped a car for having a headlight out. The operator was a very pleasant woman and acknowledged that her light was out. That would have earned her a warning for defective equipment.

Well, per protocol, I had dispatch run her record and it came back that she had an EBW (Electronic Bench Warrant) on her since Friday, due to failure to appear in court or pay the fine on a speeding charge. It required CTS (cash to settle) at time of bail.

I arrested her and brought her to the station where she was booked and bailed. The $73 ticket that she blew off cost her $127.50 plus $40.00 for the mandatory Bail Commissioner fee. That EBW would have stayed on her record as long as the fine was unpaid. That is reason enough to appear or pay.

I'm a Florida resident as well, this is good to know, Thanks and congrats!!

You could always really piss off the officer by whipping out your trusty 3G phone and look up the vehicle code written on the citation just after he handed it to you, laugh hysterically and say.... "Yeah... I'll be seeing you in court..." Then take a picture of his expression.

I probably should have said it's ridiculous to pay for a ticket with which one disagrees without trying to fight it. My primary point is that there are sometimes good reasons not simply to accept a citation with which one strongly disagrees with no discussion at all.