🚀 go-pugleaf

>So, Edward, if you really were careening down the highway way over the
>speed limit, then admit it, you broke the law. Pay the ticket and slow
>down.

Well, I generally agree with the idea that our society does not promote
members taking responsibility for their own actions.

However, having been involved in the traffic system in the past, I must
say that any connection between traffic laws and concepts such as "justice"
or "public safety" or "culpability" or any other standards are tenuous at
best. It's a lawyers, cops, and judges playground, with the common citizen
being the only "player" at a serious disadvantage.

Here's an example of the types of games that get played. But first, it will
take some explanation for background.

Oregon had (and still has) a "basic speed rule." That means that if you drive
too fast for the conditions (above "a speed that is reasonable and prudent")
then you are in violation. So, the speeds that you see posted are not, in
Oregon, speed "limit" signs, but "designated speeds." You can be arrested for
speeding while doing less than the designated speed if conditions warrant
(appropriate right now with icy roads.) You can exceed the designated speed
legally.

The designated speed is the point where proof of burden shifts. If you exceed
that speed, it is "prima facie" evidence that you were in violation. If you
can reasonably prove to the judge that conditions made your speed "reasonable
and prudent" than you're home free - or should be according to law. If you are
arrested doing less than the designated speed, the burden of proof is on the
officer to prove that you were exceeding a reasonable and prudent speed.

Enough for the background. Actually, this system is good, and it works. The
55 MPH limit screwed it around some, but OK. Now here's the example of how the
common driver gets screwed.

A year or so ago, the State Police asked for a fundamental change in Oregon
traffic law. They asked that the 25 MPH speeds in neighborhoods be absolute
speed limits - doesn't matter if you can prove you were safe, you're breaking
the law.

Why did the cops want this? They were very open about it: too many people were
"getting off" in court. See the police logic? "Too many people took it before
an impartial judicial system (which in fact is far from impartial - visit a
traffic court some time), and our accusations were judged to be inadequate. So
we want the legislature to mandate that our accusations are unquestionable."

The court system was doing their job, and the police didn't like it. They used
the legislature as a neat end play.

Our legislature passed their new rule without a whimper. Oregonians weren't
aware of it, it was so quietly done. (But then, most Oregonians aren't really
informed about their basic rule rights anyway.) So once again, the common
driver has lost the recourse to even question the traffic system.

If this were atypical, I'd be less bothered. But it's typical of the whole
system. It's a system that makes criminals of the common person. Nobody in the
system appears to be in the least concerned about concepts such as "safety" or
"justice." Heck, even "fair play," since play seems the operative concept.

So if somebody wants to get off a traffic ticket on a technicality, I say
more power to them - after all they are only applying the same rules that
are being used against them. They are fighting an unjust system with that
system's own rules. Go for it. And also, in this case, the ticket recipient
should force the system to apply the basic rule, and make certain that his
speed really *was* in excess of a speed that is reasonable and prudent, given
*all* the circumstances.

The other alternative - that the citizens take reins in hand and alter the
system - is hopeless in light of the apathy shown in face of the police
maneuver described above. I gave up on that concept a long time ago.

--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077