Oh no, it's starting all over!

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Just give it a few more years and the cops will be requesting payment at the roadside. No hearing at all.

This whole mess could have been avoided if traffic laws were a bit more reasonable leading to a decrease in disputes by those who feel unfairly treated by the system.

Watch for a surge in frivolous tickets such as speed for 5 over since the officer no longer has to waste time in court.

The "pay at the roadside" process is nothng new. Back in the 1960's and 70's you paid when ticketed...you're too young to know that.

Making people feel "fairly treated" when they chose to break the law, and have them happily volunteer to pay fines, ain't gonna happen in this world.

The time saved by not appearing to testify in court for a few minutes is going to be far overruled by the time spent in completing a crown council type report in advance. I have had to do a CC Report for a VT because a lawyer required it and it took me a couple of hours from start to finish. Testifying on a VT seldom took more than about 15 minutes. BTW, any Cop who actually wrote a VT and went to trial on a 5 k over the limit VT would find a very unhappy JP or Judge to deal with.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by zulutango

The "pay at the roadside" process is nothng new. Back in the 1960's and 70's you paid when ticketed...you're too young to know that.

Yeah, nothing original here... seen this about 20 years ago in several states. Montana's famous $5 "day ticket" is payable on-the-spot.

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Reasonable is relative. If the laws were a bit more "reasonable" people might pay them even less attention because the penalties would be low enough to scoff at.

Like the aforementioned Montana tickets? I have relatives who live in Montana, they tell me the only reason anyone doesn't speed there is because they simply want to be law-abiding; there's no deterrence in the fine.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Like the aforementioned Montana tickets? I have relatives who live in Montana, they tell me the only reason anyone doesn't speed there is because they simply want to be law-abiding; there's no deterrence in the fine.

Ah yes, Montana. Where the death rate doubled when the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit was replaced by the federally mandated 75mph limit.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Reasonable is relative. If the laws were a bit more "reasonable" people might pay them even less attention because the penalties would be low enough to scoff at.

You're mixing up law and penalty.

If the laws were more reflective of the reasonable actions of the majority of people, then there would be far fewer people breaking them. Many traffic laws are sensible - they keep people in their lanes and stop people from crashing into eachother. Speed on the other hand - you're much much much less likely to crash if you're doing 65kph in a 50kph zone where there's 6 lanes of traffic than if you run a red light.

You're also more likely to increase aggression in those around you if you're one of the minority who insists on sticking to the posted limit.

Yet it's the failure of the municipal and provincial engineering departments to set speed limits appropriately that result in these severe courtroom backlogs.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Transience

At the same time, one has to ask why they have received a ticket in the first place. Obviously it isn't because they haven't done anything wrong...

Grab a scanner and listen to some of the multi-member traffic operations. They don't always ticket the right driver.