I got a speeding ticket should I go to court or just pay the fine...

I got a speeding ticket should I go to court or just pay the fine? Basically I was going like 13 over the limit I don't remember if I was only going 10 at first but an officer started driving right behind me on my tail end. Usually when a person drives like that if i am going slow enough I speed up a bit to see if it satisfies them I think I may have done that. I saw he was still on my tail end so I moved to the right lane to let him pass but he followed me and then I realized it was a police officer and the lights went on. Do I have any case here or do I basically have to pay it? He didn't charge me for anything except speeding so I'm worried if I take it to court I could get a worse fine. Any anons with experience here?

Attached: 1516748474552.jpg (606x918, 46K)

>Do I have any case here
Not at all. There’s nothing to fight. Don’t go to court or else you’ll have to pay court fees too on top of your fine.

How do people ever get pulled over. When I had a morning commute, I did 90 all the way there.

You're fucked because you're basically admitting the offence. You might get off with a warning at court but at the same time you could still pay a fine. Or you might be able to write a letter to the government saying you're a good driver, you've got a good history etc... Depends on the country/state you're from.
>t. actual police officer

go to court. Police can't give you ticked for speeding because they looked at their speedometer in car. They need proper device and actually evidence/proof.

I figured as much. I just read some articles online advising to take it to court. I don't think I have much of a case though even though I really wasn't driving dangerously. It sort of seems like speeding tickets are a clever tax mechanism since basically everyone speeds.

Wow I never go 90 and I'm the one who gets the ticket. Isn't that funny?

Thanks yeah I'm not gonna lie I was speeding I don't have any case to prove I wasn't because I was.

>>t. actual police officer

Doubt

Not true. Depending on the car, their speedometer might be properly calibrated more finely tuned than the average car. He's toast.

In court police need actually proof.

you big fucking retard

Doubt all you want mate.

yea i will

no fuck off

He could have had a radar I don't really know. Maybe I should have asked questions but I just wanted to keep driving I had places to go. Honestly though speed limits are completely unnecessary on highways. Nobody will actually drive 200 mph if there is no speed limit. People will drive at a reasonable speed given the road conditions. That's basically how everyone drives right now anyways. I think they don't really exist to keep people safe but to enable the police force to obtain funding by setting a quota for officers to fulfill when more funding is needed.

>People will drive at a reasonable speed given the road conditions.
kek no they won’t

Yes they will of course one or two asshole won't and those assholes still drive like that even with speed limits. Of course people will drive faster with no speed limit but that does not mean they will drive more recklessly.

If there were no legal/financial consequences to driving dangerously, more people would do it. Fear of tickets is what keeps people in line.

>He could have had a radar

radars dont work when they are in moving car. You are retard and deserve ticket for being fucking retard. Dont go to court you will embrass yourself with your reasoning. Police monetize on people like you. On retards.

Speeding isn't the same as driving dangerously though. Speed limits are arbitrary there is no objectively "safe" speed limit on all highways. If the road is completely straight the objectively safe speed limit could be 90 for example.

Right but I don't know that his car was always moving. I didn't notice he was a police car until he was behind me I didn't see if he was stopped and started following me.

Don't try to fight it, since you actually were speeding.

Judging by your post, this looks like your first ticket. Here's what I recommend (worked for me)
>Fill out the ticket, plead guilty
>Write a letter to the judge acknowledging the fact that you made a mistake
Fill in all that are applicable:
>This is my first ticket in x years of driving
>I am a poor college student/wageslave paying off debt
>I really can't afford for my insurance to go up because of this ticket
>I'm genuinely sorry
>Please have mercy

>Mail this letter with the ticket to the court.

I did this and got a $250 20 over ticket (which would also result in approximately $300 more in insurance per year for 3 years) reduced to a $100 non-moving violation with no impact on insurance. The increase in insurance premiums is much harsher than the cost of the ticket. I know a lot of people will recommend "just fight it, there's a chance the cop won't show up and you'll get it dropped" but that's pretty unlikely, and I already saved over $1000 by doing this vs trying to fight it and failing, or paying it as-is

>Right but I don't know that his car was always moving

tsk tsk. Looks like someone is retarded indeed. First of all when you get ticked for speeding police will send you letter they wont stop you. They have radar set up and wont chase after you.

Please just fucking stop. Embrassing. 0 logic 0 intelligence build.

>Speeding isn't the same as driving dangerously though.
Speed is a factor in a large amount of car accidents. Yes the specific speed limit is arbitrary but it’s dumb to think that means we should do away with speed limits entirely and let everybody drive whatever speed they want. I know you’re just salty because you got ticketed but come on, have some common sense.

That's what I think I will have to do. Like I said these laws exist to fund police forces. Even a simple search on traffic quotas shows this is true. Some states have banned that though but only like 2 I think.

It's not logic or intelligence to be ignorant of the law. There is a reason we have a profession of being a lawyer, because the law is far to complicated for everyone to understand. You come off as arrogant and naive.

I'm talking only on highways not in residential areas. Also there could still be laws on reckless driving which could involve speed as a factor but it shouldn't be an arbitrary limit. The law doesn't have to be written with a specific number that is just in there to make it easier to enforce.

One of the common defenses for a moving violation is a "necessity defense". You can request any notes and video recording there is before trial as part of discovery.

If a vehicle is approaching you at an alarming rate of speed or is tailgating you (driving at an extremely unsafe following distance), speeding up as a response is not an uncommon (and sometimes effective) way of trying to create a safer road condition.

A lot really depends on what kind of judge you go in front of, and how much the local legal system is willing to stand for the police breaking and stretching laws in order to bring in that ticket money.

Check the local laws regarding violating traffic laws for police. If, as in many if not most jurisdictions, the police are not permitted to violate traffic laws without having a siren on, it's very likely the police officer violated the law to catch up to you in a hurry and by pressuring you to move faster. They can argue that conditions were safe to do so, which means that it was safe for you to speed up to avoid their behavior.

A local lawyer that specializes in traffic may have a history of dealing successfully with tickets generated in this specific way by the officer who ticketed you, but this can be expensive.

A couple places where I used to live, the states used to permit a no-contest pleading in court, payment of a larger amount for the fine, and would in return give no points to the license. This depends on the judge and the location, and can be a cheaper way of avoiding points than getting a lawyer. Over the last few decades some states have changed their laws to prevent this no-points pleading because it's a huge safety issue.

>People will drive at a reasonable speed given the road conditions.
You are a clueless fool.

That's what I was wondering if there was a case in that respect.

>You are a clueless fool.
I don't mean all roads should have no speed limit. Nobody should drive 70 down a residential area. I only mean highways with divides and safe conditions. There are countries like Germany that have no speed limit. Granted I don't know the law is 100% written so speeding can't be fined in all cases. I'm just saying is it really preventing accidents if speeding tickets catch people that generally drive safe but faster than the limit instead of people that drive dangerously and cleverly so as to avoid getting a ticket?

>there could still be laws on reckless driving which could involve speed as a factor but it shouldn't be an arbitrary limit
Then how is one supposed to define a reckless speed, you idiot? Why the fuck do you think there’s a maximum speed already in place?

Through the discretion of a judge/jury. I'm not a lawyer but there are obviously rules that are more open to interpretation and not so clearly defined that's why we have a court system.

That’s so needlessly complex and unfair
>I'm not a lawyer
Yeah no duh

Is it any more unfair than just randomly pulling over someone who sped at the wrong place in the wrong time? Also the idea would be not to pull people over just for speeding but for actually recklessly driving like swerving between lanes and cutting people off.

A significant portion of the autobahn (about 30%), primarily where there is routinely a high traffic density, has permanent posted speed limits.