Charged with violating 24400 (b) : Operating without headlight in inclement weather.

[justalayman]

The system seems to be more about nit-picking and the cops opinions than it is about protecting life and property (the stated primary mission of the particular agency in question).

That being the case, it is far more expedient for me to pay them off. Thanks guys!

it's nice you choose to ignore answers to your statements as you desire. The fact is, the headlight law is there to protect life and property. In enforcing the law, the cop was doing precisely what their stated primary mission is yet you want to go off on some commentary about discrimination (with absolutely nothing in your contact this time or any other time in your life to support it).

 

[eecraft]

it's nice you choose to ignore answers to your statements as you desire. The fact is, the headlight law is there to protect life and property. In enforcing the law, the cop was doing precisely what their stated primary mission is yet you want to go off on some commentary about discrimination (with absolutely nothing in your contact this time or any other time in your life to support it).

Actually a couple of my replies have gotten flagged to moderator, which address this aspect head on. I will not belabor that point.

I was going at 30mph (in a 35 mph zone, per cop's ticket) at 11 am in 2 mile visibility and borderline on/off rain. It is a very long stretch to have any reason to believe that I was endangering life or property at the time.

 

[eecraft]

so it was raining when you were stopped. Otherwise there would be no question as the officer simply would not have gotten wet at all.



you are depending too much on your car. It is not perfect and any car I am aware of with automatic lights has an adjustment that allows you to alter the light level required to cause them to activate. I would imagine an automatic wiper system would have a similar adjustment so the driver could adjust them to their own preferences.

You are also missing cdwjava's statement that being in intermittent mode continuously may be adequate for the court to determine your wipers were in fact on.

so what kind of car is this that is so intuitive it acts in full compliance with the laws of the state of California?

The officer only got a few drops of rain at best. Same as me in about 5 minutes from then as I got out and walked into my destination.

Yes, I am counting quite a bit on my car (I did check with the manufacturer yesterday on this exact point actually.) and on my judgement. Its worked thus far, in 22+ years of driving in this country, only have been responsible for one fender bender 8 years ago, and the victim at the time did not feel it necessary to call a cop for the ding she got. (Gave her my insurance info). You're free to assume what you want to about myself.

 

[HighwayMan]

The system seems to be more about nit-picking...

Yes, that's what all violators say to try to justify the fact that they received a traffic ticket or criminal summons.

 

[HighwayMan]

Actually a couple of my replies have gotten flagged to moderator...

MUST be racially motivated.

 

[Zigner]

I was going at 30mph (in a 35 mph zone, per cop's ticket) at 11 am in 2 mile visibility and borderline on/off rain.

And THAT is why you lose.

 

[eecraft]

MUST be racially motivated.

Don't think so. Keeping a forum on topic is the moderator's main concern. One of the 2 posts was ~ 2 paragraphs long on why the race thought entered my head. In retrospect, I regret bringing it up here, as it is not central to my case one way or another. It is a learning for me, should I go to court - to not let that be a red herring - and so not to bring it up.

The other post was 2 lines and a link to a dictionary website which showed text highlighted from you to match up with the definition of prejudice. Almost word for word. Don't quite know why that was not put through, but not too bitter about it since I do not know this forum too well.

Overall, I have found this forum to be a helpful resource, and was getting some good feedback particularly from CdwJava. No complaints at all.

 

[eecraft]

And THAT is why you lose.

Not sure what you mean, but my first thought was actually if I was going too slow and was being warned for that.

 

[justalayman]

Don't think so. Keeping a forum on topic is the moderator's main concern. One of the 2 posts was ~ 2 paragraphs long on why the race thought entered my head. In retrospect, I regret bringing it up here, as it is not central to my case one way or another. It is a learning for me, should I go to court - to not let that be a red herring - and so not to bring it up.



The other post was 2 lines and a link to a dictionary website which showed text highlighted from you to match up with the definition of prejudice. Almost word for word. Don't quite know why that was not put through, but not too bitter about it since I do not know this forum too well.

Overall, I have found this forum to be a helpful resource, and was getting some good feedback particularly from CdwJava. No complaints at all.

Actually the mods here are fairly passive and tend to limit their involvement to removing improper posts (language issues, advertisement, other violations of the tos). They do not actively moderate the threads to ensure they remain "on point".
But hey, if you think you know what the mods here are supposed to be doing there is a "contact us" link at the bottom of the page. They will probably enjoy the laugh resulting from some poster claiming to have the authority to decide what they should be doing.


While you now regret bringing up any concern of race, one has to wonder why you would do it at all unless it was germane to your issue. Nothing you posted even hints at the possibility this was racially motivated so that suggests posting your race based comments were used only to inflame. That is not welcome on this forum.

 

[eecraft]

Yes, that's what all violators say to try to justify the fact that they received a traffic ticket or criminal summons.

All?

Some stats from courts_ca_gov about traffic infractions:

17% end up pleading guilty, which is surprisingly low.
45% end up forfeiting bail, but not addressing guilt. Inferring from the web that this category is a big "maybe", with one comment elsewhere saying 'state gets the money, you get no points or traffic school, everyone wins.'
38% are classified 'other' in that doc. I'm gathering from other reports that about 15-18% of this 38% are officer no-shows which may imply that just over 20% are found not guilty before trial.

9% go to court trial and that particular doc does not break down trial outcomes.

Seems the courts don't remotely agree with the "all" even with the built-in biases towards the officer on traffic infractions.

(Not sure if posting a link triggers moderation so not attaching it. Comes up on google for California court statistics and is a report on how many cases are going through the court system.)

 

[HighwayMan]

I had a situation years ago where I stopped a black female for window tint. Her windows tested at around 15% visible light transmittance which is very dark.

At the end of the stop, which was very cordial, she asked me if she could have my badge number. I said "of course you can, may I ask why you want it?".

She said "well, I think you stopped me because I'm black".

I was shocked and almost didn't know what to say. I then offered to sit in her car if she got out of it and dared her to tell me what race I was, how many occupants were in the car, or if I had antennae coming out of my head, ala My Favorite Martian.

She was silent for a moment, put her head down, then said "Oh... you're right".

I told her that if she ever got stopped again she should really think things through instead of jumping to conclusions.

 

[justalayman]

which may imply that just over 20% are found not guilty before trial.

.)

you cannot be found not guilty before a trial. That is what is used to judge innocence or guilt. If your claims of the weather and the functions of your vehicle are as accurate as your statement here, well, welcome to loserville.

 

[Silverplum]

The key issue is that you feel/think that you are owed an explanation and some hand-holding. You are not entitled to explanations at the side of the road. If you considered anyone other than yourself, you might figure why.

Blame the system. It's easy and takes no thought or effort.

 

[HighwayMan]

All?

I was not referring to court.

Most people have enough of a brain to realize that they will get nowhere with that argument in court.

It is a common spontaneous utterance when they get stopped and handed a ticket. That, along with "why don't you stop real criminals" and "don't you have more important things to do".

 

[eecraft]

Actually the mods here are fairly passive and tend to limit their involvement to removing improper posts (language issues, advertisement, other violations of the tos). They do not actively moderate the threads to ensure they remain "on point".
But hey, if you think you know what the mods here are supposed to be doing there is a "contact us" link at the bottom of the page. They will probably enjoy the laugh resulting from some poster claiming to have the authority to decide what they should be doing.


While you now regret bringing up any concern of race, one has to wonder why you would do it at all unless it was germane to your issue. Nothing you posted even hints at the possibility this was racially motivated so that suggests posting your race based comments were used only to inflame. That is not welcome on this forum.

Both those posts also had links embedded in them, not sure if that correlates. Not familiar with forum to draw any conclusions.

Why I brought it up: It came to my mind as a thought. And one of the posts that has not shown up went about 2 paragraphs into explaining the process by which it did.
And my hope/intent with posting on this forum, once I found it, was to use it as a sort of proxy for what might come in the actual process.
As I said before, I found for myself here and is likely in the court as well - to become a red herring while not at all being central to the case.

1. Do I think the officer in question was being over-zealous at best, completely misplaced in his attentions and possibly neglecting something else more important? Yes I do. Even to the point of wondering if there was a ticket quota to meet that day.
2. Do I think the officer in question was not listening at all to reason? Absolutely, and this is my main dissatisfaction for which I am, or was, considering to spend more time and money than the fine itself. (Which I've gathered to be around $300 once all is tallied up). One of my questions was: Should I get a lawyer? , that alone puts it quite over $300.
3. Do I think the cop is prejudiced? As the dictionary defines it, this question is the same as #2.
4. Is racism one form of prejudice? It certainly is, but...
5. Was racism involved in this instance? I actually have no reason to pursue that line of thought and I shouldn't. As acerbic as some of your posts might have been, discussion has been useful on this topic.

p.s. Don't know how this forum is run. But having been a moderator a fair few times in real life (not on the internet), keeping things on topic is important. I'm not deciding what the mods ought to do, rather believing that they have good moderator habits in place. Another theory on those 2 posts is that they had an internet link, as I said elsewhere.