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

[eecraft]

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.

Think they are referring to Trial by Written Declaration, which appears to be the most common way of deciding traffic infraction cases. Think it is the same TBWD that the first response was saying. It is a trial, just not a court trial.

 

[Silverplum]

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.

In your finely edumacated opinion, of course.

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.

Again, the special snowflake wants to "reason" with the officer at the side of the road.

3. Do I think the cop is prejudiced? As the dictionary defines it, this question is the same as #2.

You think the officer is prejudiced. And you looked it up with a dictionary. SMH at your dainty and clueless self.

4. Is racism one form of prejudice? It certainly is, but...

I find your rambling accusations quite offensive. I hope that makes you happy, because I'm sure that's why you screech like a spoilt child.

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.

 

[HighwayMan]

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.

As I said, typical with your "how dare I get a ticket for something so minor" attitude.

It does not matter how minor it is - it IS a violation of the law and you can certainly be justifiably cited for it.

I forgot about the "quota" - that's another one angry motorists throw out there - "It's the end of the month so I guess you didn't meet your quota".

Your type is really very predictable - and those "arguments" will get you nowhere when your case is adjudicated.

 

[eecraft]

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".

Well, I certainly did not utter any of those three thoughts to the officer. My only discussion was that I had the lights on auto and that this is the way I've used the car (and that I had not dealt with an officer in a very long time, so was not familiar on what to say or do.)

My first real question was to the manufacturer of the car, contacted their help line and asked if the auto wiper and auto lights worked as they should (i.e. in coordination with wiper) for California. They do. It is after ascertaining this aspect that I proceeded further, including finding this forum. Not sure why I am still here, as I've drawn the conclusions I needed (from here and other links I found).

 

[justalayman]

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.

actually, bringing up some race issue without any basis to believe there is a real issue is likely to piss off the judge. Pissed off judges tend to be hard to convince you are not guilty and they tend to show less mercy to the defendant.

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.

Ah, the ol' quota claim and the "you should be chasing real criminals" argument. Both foolish. Both likely to piss off the judge.

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.

He has no obligation to listen to anything. He can if he so chooses. If you disagree with the ticket, that is what the courts are for.

3. Do I think the cop is prejudiced? As the dictionary defines it, this question is the same as #2.

EVERYBODY is prejudiced. I happen to think eating lamb is not very appealing yet I have never eaten lamb. That makes me not only prejudiced but prejudiced without cause.

4. Is racism one form of prejudice? It certainly is, but...

of course it is but again, you have not even suggested there was racism involved. Your attempt to infer it by making your statements about race serve no purpose.

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.

in other words; you should never have brought it up. No basis to bring it up but still doing so is the mark of a troll. To consider using such an argument in court with no basis is simply foolish.

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.

moderators in real life generally deal with debates. This is a forum, not a debate.

I'm not deciding what the mods ought to do, rather believing that they have good moderator habits in place.

who are you do decide what good moderator habits are and what business is it of yours whether the moderators here have "good moderator habits" or not (hint; it isn't)

Another theory on those 2 posts is that they had an internet link, as I said elsewhere.

as you should have discovered by now, links are generally not allowed. The mods are moderating apparently and removing posts that contain unapproved content. Hey look, the mods are moderating. Who'd a thought???

 

[justalayman]

Think they are referring to Trial by Written Declaration, which appears to be the most common way of deciding traffic infraction cases. Think it is the same TBWD that the first response was saying. It is a trial, just not a court trial.

well, since that IS a trial where an adjudicator reviews the evidence, stating people are found not guilty prior to trial is an improper statement. The title of the activity alone shows that: TRIAL by written declaration.

Maybe you should re-consider a source that does not accept that something titled; TRIAL bwd is a trial.

 

[justalayman]

You have never mentioned what the officer wrote on the ticket for weather conditions. Care to share?

24400. (a) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall
be equipped with at least two headlamps, with at least one on
each side of the front of the vehicle, and, except as to vehicles
registered prior to January 1, 1930, they shall be located directly
above or in advance of the front axle of the vehicle. The headlamps
and every light source in any headlamp unit shall be located at a
height of not more than 54 inches nor less than 22 inches.
(b) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be operated
during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two
lighted headlamps that comply with subdivision (a).
(c) As used in subdivision (b), "inclement weather" is a weather
condition that is either of the following:
(1) A condition that prevents a driver of a motor vehicle from
clearly discerning a person or another motor vehicle on the highway
from a distance of 1,000 feet.
(2) A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in
continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation
or atmospheric moisture.

I read a little about rain sensing wipers. While I'm sure the manufacturer of your vehicle loves claiming they are perfect, so far it appears they are not. They do have problems and are not always as effective as the manufacturer would like you to believe. I have read they can tend to not activate in misty situations where not enough water accumulates in front of the sensor to activate them even though the driver's vision is obscured enough that they should activate.

along with that, as cdwjava stated, continuous is subject to interpretation by the judge hearing the case. Surely in a misty situation one would not expect the wipers to be running continuously (as in always moving) yet the law does speak to mist and even fog where using a delay or intermittent setting would be employed so while the wipers are not in constant motion, they are in fact in continuous use for the purposes of the law (my interpretation).

 

[eecraft]

well, since that IS a trial where an adjudicator reviews the evidence, stating people are found not guilty prior to trial is an improper statement. The title of the activity alone shows that: TRIAL by written declaration.

Maybe you should re-consider a source that does not accept that something titled; TRIAL bwd is a trial.

The source is the California Judicial Council, the document is their statewide court statistics report, is posted on california courts gov.

 

[justalayman]

The source is the California Judicial Council, the document is their statewide court statistics report, is posted on california courts gov.

ok. I stand by my statement. If they do not acknowledge a TBWD as a trial and make some statement that defendants are somehow proven not guilty without a trial, I think they should reconsider their statement. It is simply incorrect as presented. Maybe there is some context you failed to carry over that would explain it but your quote, if there is no further statements to clarify, is simply wrong.

 

[eecraft]

You have never mentioned what the officer wrote on the ticket for weather conditions. Care to share?





I read a little about rain sensing wipers. While I'm sure the manufacturer of your vehicle loves claiming they are perfect, so far it appears they are not. They do have problems and are not always as effective as the manufacturer would like you to believe. I have read they can tend to not activate in misty situations where not enough water accumulates in front of the sensor to activate them even though the driver's vision is obscured enough that they should activate.

along with that, as cdwjava stated, continuous is subject to interpretation by the judge hearing the case. Surely in a misty situation one would not expect the wipers to be running continuously (as in always moving) yet the law does speak to mist and even fog where using a delay or intermittent setting would be employed so while the wipers are not in constant motion, they are in fact in continuous use for the purposes of the law (my interpretation).

-> In the "Comments (weather, road, traffic conditions) section" there is:
R, W, L
(No further details beyond these three capitalized letters.)

-> In fog, the headlights turn on without the windshield wipers turning on - at least in the vehicle that I have they do. Fog is not unusual while driving up to San Francisco in the mornings as I sometimes have done in this car. The activation of headlights for continuous wipers is in addition to light levels (logical OR, so to speak). I am not sure when mist becomes fog or vice versa.

 

[CdwJava]

I wonder how representative you are of people working in law enforcement. In a way, that is what I'm trying to get a sense of.
With the attitude like what you're demonstrating, I wouldn't think I'm being served or protected. (And I'm under the impression that this is your primary job.)

Why would =you think it is the job of the police to listen to your excuses? Arguing on the side of the road is both unsafe, and generally unproductive. It is unlikely that anything the officer says will change your mind and all it will do will be to distract the officer from what he is doing. As a note, this is a tactic taken by many who wish to do officers harm, so part of training generally includes NOT engaging the suspect in a debate on the side of the road.

 

[CdwJava]

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).

Traffic enforcement IS about safety. Especially in inclement weather!

Last night in Sacramento, there was a steady flood of collision victims heading into area hospitals. Perhaps if they had done a little more enforcement last night, a couple of those collisions and injuries would not have happened.

 

[CdwJava]

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.

You are free to think he was being "over" zealous all you want. The fact was, he was doing his job and enforcing traffic regulations that encourage traffic safety.

Oh, and quotas are illegal in CA, and not only attorneys but law enforcement labor associations fight them when they try to rear their ugly head even in such terms as being referred to as "shift goals" or some such thing.

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.

The officer likely listened to what you had to say and that was enough for him. He knew what he saw and, perhaps, felt that with what he felt was your attitude that a warning might not be sufficient to change the behavior (just guessing), so he opted for a cite.

The money you might spend on the cite will be eaten up by an attorney so you'd be out the same amount of money. Most traffic defense attorneys tend to make things easier for you and plead guilty or no contest. But, it's up to you if you want to risk spending more than the base fine in an effort to try and beat the cite. Who knows, maybe the judge will agree with you? The officer may admit that the weather did not require wipers ... but, if that were the case, he would probably not have pulled you over.

3. Do I think the cop is prejudiced? As the dictionary defines it, this question is the same as #2.

In what way was he "prejudiced" against you? And why do you think that?

4. Is racism one form of prejudice? It certainly is, but...

... there is no proof of that being an issue here, so ...

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.

Good call.

 

[justalayman]

Carl, did you catch the post where the op stated the letters R W L were on the cite for weather, road, traffic conditions. Do you have an interpretation?

 

[eecraft]

Traffic enforcement IS about safety. Especially in inclement weather!

Last night in Sacramento, there was a steady flood of collision victims heading into area hospitals. Perhaps if they had done a little more enforcement last night, a couple of those collisions and injuries would not have happened.

I agree with this overall sentiment. Quite a bit, such that I have exited a road and into a parking lot a few times when rain really hit hard (in one case, not here, snow). Has not happened in the past couple of years around here, with the drought. The conditions yesterday morning though, were so far away from anything resembling that.

This is about the details....