yerfer Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Not saying to do this, but here in Arizona, if you decide to fight the ticket, you will usually be shown multiple pictures and sometimes video footage of the supposed you and then questioned if that is actually you. The number one thing the judge is looking for is getting you to incriminate yourself by stating you are the one in the picture or video. A large number of people just claim they don't know or say it might be. Most of the time it gets the ticket thrown out. Call it dishonest or disloyal to the system, but many people believe its not the duty of speed cameras to catch unlawful acts, but rather, an actual cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yerfer Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Correct me if I'm wrong...but if you're due in court (i.e: brought up on speeding charges), isn't it a requirement of due process for you to be NOTIFIED by a servant of the court? Who's to say that the ticket didn't just get lost in the mail? Was it delivered via an agent of the court? Did a police officer hand it to you? Was it sent via certified mail, and then signed by you or your wife? If not, I'd say you weren't properly served and, therefore, aren't due in court to plea/defend yourself/be convicted. The USPS screws-up ALL THE TIME. In Arizona they come directly to your front door if you don't respond by a certain time. Even if you don't answer the door it will still be reported that you have been served. The courts don't care because to them its on record and the volume of people trying to get out of paying the man is so large they just assume you are going to pay or not. I have watched many people throw away their tickets like nothing will ever happen and then months later they find out their license is suspended. My mother received a ticket in the mail and decided to fight it, which I think is option B here in Arizona. She called in on it right away and couldn't get ahold of anyone. Not one single person would answer the phone. She even mailed in her appeal notice and they never responded. Instead they charged her a late fee notice and THEN decided they would set up a court date. It was ridiculous. When they want money they will find a way to get it regardless if you win or not. The hassle of fighting has become so tedious and lengthy that many end up just paying the damn ticket. UFB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spur38 Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Is your name Erick? Have your wife represent you! PAY the man and quit quibbling...... An American woman claims she became pregant after watching a 3D porno. US military man Erick Jhonson came home from a stint in Iraq to find that his wife was pregnant, while he was trying to get ot of a radar enforced speeding ticket. Clearly he assumed she had an affair, but his wife Jennifer claims the “other man” was actually someone a little less physical. It seems he actually buys her story, however. “I see it as suspicious. The films in 3D are very real. With today’s technology, anything is possible,” he said. What's even more interesting is that both Jennifer and Erick are white, but the child is black. Jeniffer claims the kid looks like the black pornstar she had been ogling. She also claims this was one of the first times she's watched porn and only went with friends for the 3D effect. TechEye did a survey of one person and found 100 percent would say the same thing in a similar situation. “Even though my husband believed in me, my marriage could be at risk,” Jennifer said. “But he knows I’m faithful.” It just shows you what joining the military does to your head. Jennifer explained that “a month after watching the movie, I started feeling dizzy and the results were positive.” That must have been one good porno. 3D movies have gained renewed popularity since Avatar, but there have been some concerns raised over how bad they may be for your eyes. Now you'll have to worry about conceiving in the cinema. You may have jumped when an object in film was thrown at the camera, but now you'll have to be careful of other, far more uncouth things flying at you. TechEye recommends contraception for your next trip to the cinema. You never know. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masshole Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 PAY the man and quit quibbling...... Do not listen to this guy! Grab this bull by the horns and powerslam it through a truth table! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I'm thinking you need an uparmored spy car that records all driving parameters for the debrief on the internet. I got tagged at 0200 in a rental car last time I was in DC. They had the fucking camera/radar set up at the very beginning of a construction zone...no traffic at 0200 and you couldn't even tell it was a construction zone. I got shacked doing 55 in a temporary 35 construction speed zone, double down on the fine. Fuckers. I paid it and pressed on. Just do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackKnight Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 You never know. Go for it. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/09/dc-camera-ticket-overturned-over-accuracy-doubts/ Cheers, Barney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 You never know. Go for it. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/09/dc-camera-ticket-overturned-over-accuracy-doubts/ Cheers, Barney Nice. How long have you known about this? I was driving your drunk ass home when I got the ticket in DC. Thanks for the mutual support, bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackKnight Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 Nice. How long have you known about this? I was driving your drunk ass home when I got the ticket in DC. Thanks for the mutual support, bitch. Should have included my "countdown until RM gives me sh!t for this post". You're so predictable. Yeah, I knew about it the day after you got the ticket but sat on it for 2 years. 'Cause that's the kind of a-hole friend I am. I found it 2 days ago after getting my 3rd robocop ticket. I hadn't had a ticket in 17 years before I moved to DC. I f'n hate robocop. They set them up in the worst (best for them, they're not stupid unfortunately) places- places where you come off a highway off ramp to a rapid drop to 35 mph limit. Or, like I suspect and like CH's wife, I wasn't speeding in the first place. Total BS. I wish I had found that article prior to paying- I would put $$ on it other cars were in the pics. Oh- and as always, GFYS. Merry Christmas! Barney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theat6bisasham Posted August 23, 2011 Share Posted August 23, 2011 No reason to fight this on tech - just do this. #1 submit the fine #2 go to court #3 say you are not guilty because it wasn't you driving #4 when they ask who was driving, tell them you don't know as you left your keys in the car and told a group of friends[neighbors/family/squadron..etc] they could use it whenever they pleased #5 if asked who these people were, tell them you don't know - you've told so many people they could use it, it's beyond your ability to recall. Hand them a squadron recall roster and say "any of these dudes". #6 if they still convict, appeal it - you'll probably win the appeal easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Help me fight the man -- International Version Just received a notice from AVIS (Italy) that they determined that I was the driver of a car that was ticketed on mainland Italy while I was on the island of Sicily. They have already charged my credit card for their "admin fee" in discovering I was the "culprit." Here's the rub: According to the ticket, I was speeding at 15:56 near Salerno (mainland). However, my rental receipt shows that I was turned in the car at 16:20 the same day as the ticket. Somehow, I suspect being the only 'merican they could stick with the ticket, AVIS concluded I was speeding in the vehicle over 700 km away within 25 minutes of me turning it in. Any thoughts as to how to go about getting my money back from AVIS and not having to pay the ticket (fee yet to be established)? Anyone experienced with foreign speed cameras? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokin Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I would start with the AVIS in the US. They probably have a better system for communicating and dealing with the Italians. Tell them you are going to file a Better Business Bureau complaint. This will also avoid fighting the Italians on their turf as they are pros at bureaucracy shenanigans. You can also try challenging the charge with your credit card company. Send them the info and they can cancel the charge while they investigate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Copy. AVIS USA was shittastically unhelpful. I take that back, they did provide the email address for Italian AVIS customer service. So I emailed them with a Google translation (and my original English and apologies for my terrible Italian writing). The US office can see everything but refuses to deal with it, and they were nonplussed by the BBB comment. The charge is already contested with USAA, pending resolution from AVIS. I'm already seeing the bureaucracy, as it took them over a month to process the ticket and three months to send it to AVIS. However it took AVIS only a short time to magically finger (sts) me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BQZip01 Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Copy. AVIS USA was shittastically unhelpful. I take that back, they did provide the email address for Italian AVIS customer service. So I emailed them with a Google translation (and my original English and apologies for my terrible Italian writing). The US office can see everything but refuses to deal with it, and they were nonplussed by the BBB comment. The charge is already contested with USAA, pending resolution from AVIS. I'm already seeing the bureaucracy, as it took them over a month to process the ticket and three months to send it to AVIS. However it took AVIS only a short time to magically finger (sts) me. Sue Avis. They have no reason to deprive you of your hard-earned money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted September 18, 2011 Share Posted September 18, 2011 Report the charge to your credit card company as fraudulent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Hearing this morning, case dismissed in 6.9 seconds. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 OWs has nothing on you for sticking it to the man! Do tell the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Hearing this morning, case dismissed in 6.9 seconds. Target Tank Sabot Up Fire On the way sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ Kind Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 So who gets the beer, CH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) OWs has nothing on you for sticking it to the man! Do tell the details. Judge - "You are charged with a speeding infraction, how do you plead? Me - "Deny" (you have three options "Accept", "Accept with explanation", or "Deny"). Judge - "What is your testimony?" Me - Handed Judge a diagram with trig function solving the beam spread, "Your honor, as you can see from the picture, given a five degree beam at 100', the beam width is 8.8' and there are clearly two cars in the beam". Judge - Shook her skull back and forth and said "you are absolutely correct, the state cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt which vehicle is speeding, case dismissed". So who gets the beer, CH? Masshole... Edited November 4, 2011 by ClearedHot 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 OUT-FVCKIN'-STANDING! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Man Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 and boom goes the dynamite...nice kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Masshole... So I went back to re-read what info Masshole provided and noticed this Allow myself to like myself.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcola Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Damn, late to this thread. Glad this one was so easy. In case anyone references this for a future similar situation, I'll add my 2c anyway. Its along the same lines as how CH won, but takes it a step further. Explain the relationship between an antenna's directivity and its beam width, then show how the beam width is approximated. Simply, it is a function of total radiation intensity. For highly directional antennas (such as K-band radar) there is one major lobe and the side lobes are negligible. The beam width for these types of antennas is an approximation based upon the angle at which the major lobe decays by half power from either side of center. This fact can cast doubt on the actual width of the beam, vs the stated 5 degrees. Furthermore, the propagation of EM waves is sensitive to the atmospheric conditions (as we've all experiences with our HF radios.) This means that the actual beam width will be further varied depending on the ambient conditions. Finally, since the stated angle of the beam width is dependent upon the approximate value of the peak radiation dropping to half value, it is obvious that the beam is not 0 at either edge, but simply exists at a smaller intensity. Since the other car in the question is closer to the radar than your car, it could be just outside the edge of the half power beam width and therefore outside of the stated 5 degree field of view, but still generate a return. Essentially, the goal is to shoot holes in the absoluteness of the width of the beam, and show that it could very easily have been the other car that is obviously close enough to create doubt. This way your argument doesn't hinge so much on the accuracy of your trigonometry compared to an absolute 5 degree beam width (which doesn't really exist.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Masshole... Careful, old buddy, me thinks Masshole is kinderschnitzel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Careful, old buddy, me thinks Masshole is kinderschnitzel! She's a baby pig cutlet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now