Drivers Bill of Rights

[9dreizig]

This latest traffic ticket by Dottore has got me thinking. Actually been thinking about it for a long time.
With all the financial crisis around the country,, armed revenue generation by state and local police forces will be rising dramatically (actually it already is). So I wonder why not a Drivers Bill or Rights that all states would have to address.. I have no idea how to get something going but here's a few ideas I have:

Driving is a necessary right not a privelage in this society.

You are entitled to a jury by your peers

Standardized penalties for violations

All fines and court costs may only go to road improvement and NOT into general funds

Automated photo ticketing is not allowed

All speed limits must be based on safety studies

Speed traps must be clearly marked at least 1/2 mile in front of trap

That's just a start,, of course the police and local government will never let it fly..

comments?

[m21sniper]

It would take armed revolt to make that happen.

[9dreizig]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

It would take armed revolt to make that happen.

Yeah I know,, and I didn't even put the stuff in that would "be nice" like cops must have hair at least 1 inch long and uniforms can't include nazi gestopo boots, maybe a personality test to filter out the smalled dicked , insecure little F's that populate 98% of the police forces in this country..

[Jeff Higgins]

Actually, several courts have already ruled that personal travel, by the "conveyance of the day" is an inalienable right. Do a google search on "right to travel" for some very interesting reading on the matter.

In essence, your right to travel for personal reasons, and to transport your personal affects, should not be governed in any way by the authorities. Our Constitution states very clearly that any powers not expressly granted the federal government are reserved to the states, and any powers not expressly granted the states are reserved to the people. Personal travel is one such power. Our Constitution makes no mention of it, thereby defaulting any authority regarding such to the people.

The clear implication here is that the states have no authority to license us for personal travel. The states like to present driving as a state granted priviledge, but they have no Constitutional grounds for that claim. The sheeple of America have accepted it since the first motor vehicle license was issued, so that would be one darn tough precedent to break. I do think, however, if one had the deep pockets and staying power necessary for such a fight, one would win on Constitutional gronds if one were to challenge the states' authority to license private travellers. That would sure be a game-changer, now wouldn't it?

[9dreizig]

Think Dueller would take the case pro-bono ??

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Our Constitution states very clearly that any powers not expressly granted the federal government are reserved to the states, and any powers not expressly granted the states are reserved to the people. Personal travel is one such power. Our Constitution makes no mention of it, thereby defaulting any authority regarding such to the people.

Our Constitution states a lot of things very clearly that are very clearly ignored by our fed. and state governments. 20,000 gun laws on a right that "shall not be infringed." The list of such outrages is endless.

[Zeke]

Transportation is a right of the free society. Taking the responsibility for transporting yourself is still a privilege for me. I say that because so many out there don't drive well and most have no idea what the laws are.

In my neighborhood, there are hundreds of 4-way stops. I think half can't tell you who has the right of way. If you're on my right, just go. Don't sit there and wonder or I might drive across your bumper.

Now, should I get a ticket for that? Some co**bite can't make a decision, so I make it for her?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

Yeah I know,, and I didn't even put the stuff in that would "be nice" like cops must have hair at least 1 inch long and uniforms can't include nazi gestopo boots, maybe a personality test to filter out the smalled dicked , insecure little F's that populate 98% of the police forces in this country..

Yeah, now you're just getting crazy...

[jyl]

One of these suggestions is not practical. Mandatory jury trial for every speeding violation would be crazy expensive, not to mention forcing lots more people to respond to jury summons. I'd be angry if my county taxes rose to pay for jurors' fees and additional courtrooms and prosecutors, and I had to miss work to repeatedly sit in a jury box for speeding violations.

In general, I think the answer is to set speed limits at realistic and reasonable levels. When highway speed limits were 55 mph, that was ridiculous and I was speeding all the time. On highways where the limit is now 70 mph, that seems more reasonable and I don't speed much. On some highways, I think the limit should be raised further, to 80 mph. Same on local streets, sometimes a 25 mph limit is sensible, other times a 35 mph limit is unrealistically low. The speed survey requirement makes sense (IIRC, in CA there is such a requirement for local roads of a certain size.)

Also, the penalties have to be reasonable and on a sliding scale. 10 mph over in a 70 mph section should be a minor fine ($50?), 30 mph over should be a major fine ($500?).

I'd also like records and logs of speed enforcement operations to be available to the public. So that media, watchdog citizen groups, etc can investigate and expose problems.

If the speed limits and penalties are set properly, and outside scrutiny is enabled, I have no problem with vigorous enforcement.

[Rick Lee]

They don't want higher speed limits, since that reduces the pool of folks from whom they can steal money when they need it. When EVERYONE is technically speeding, the state can just use motorists as their own ATM. Safety never had anything to do with it.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

...the states have no authority to license us for personal travel.

But there is also no requirement that the government furnish us with a road system to travel upon.

Could an arguement be made that it is a "priviledge" to use government-owned roads?

Maybe there can be no licensing requirement as long as we travel the wilderness in a covered wagon (or Jeep).

Just wondering out loud......

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by jyl

One of these suggestions is not practical. Mandatory jury trial for every speeding violation would be crazy expensive, not to mention forcing lots more people to respond to jury summons. I'd be angry if my county taxes rose to pay for jurors' fees and additional courtrooms and prosecutors, and I had to miss work to repeatedly sit in a jury box for speeding violations.

I disagree. I think the effect would be a drastic reduction in citations written. The tickets for inconsequential b.s. would simply stop. Today, tickets are commonly written for things like "72 in a 60", which on the face of it, sounds bad. Until one realizes everyone else was doing 70, and the unlucky citizen that was singled out was only going 2 mph faster than everyone else. Or written on a lonely stretch of country road, in an artificially low speed zone, when the driver is being every bit of "reasonable and prudent". These tickets would stop.

A jury trial, with reasonable doubt restored as the standard of evidence, would leave police looking for better things to do. Right now, it is simply too easy for them. No need to produce any sort of evidence whatsoever. No need to convince our fellow citizens of our alleged missdeeds. Today, one agent of the state only has to "convince" another agent of the state, and there is money in it for the state. Anyone see a conflict of interest here? The citizen must be returned to the loop. If the state has any allegations against a citizen, the state must be held to proving those allegations to our fellow citizens. Not itself. That is the very cornerstone of our justice system. Anything less is un-Constitutional. Too bad if it's expensive and inconvenient for the state - like I said, it would force them to drastically re-think traffic enforcement.

Originally Posted by jyl

In general, I think the answer is to set speed limits at realistic and reasonable levels. When highway speed limits were 55 mph, that was ridiculous and I was speeding all the time. On highways where the limit is now 70 mph, that seems more reasonable and I don't speed much. On some highways, I think the limit should be raised further, to 80 mph. Same on local streets, sometimes a 25 mph limit is sensible, other times a 35 mph limit is unrealistically low. The speed survey requirement makes sense (IIRC, in CA there is such a requirement for local roads of a certain size.)

I agree. The "85% rule" should be the law of the land everywhere. That, and "reasonable and prudent".

Originally Posted by jyl

Also, the penalties have to be reasonable and on a sliding scale. 10 mph over in a 70 mph section should be a minor fine ($50?), 30 mph over should be a major fine ($500?).

I would have no trouble with even raising penalties, if we return the right to jury trial, representation, appeal, and reasonable doubt as the standard of evidence. No doubt anyone who actually makes it to trial and is convicted under those standards deserves a healthy fine.

Originally Posted by jyl

I'd also like records and logs of speed enforcement operations to be available to the public. So that media, watchdog citizen groups, etc can investigate and expose problems.

If the speed limits and penalties are set properly, and outside scrutiny is enabled, I have no problem with vigorous enforcement.

I had a long (hour and a half) conversation with a Snohomish County deputy last week (he called in response to my letter). He told me speeding tops the list of complaints they receive; folks get very angry with cars speeding through their neighborhoods. Understandably so. I told him I fully support vigorous enforcement in residential neighborhoods, school zones, and the like.

Then I asked him why I never see their speed traps in residential neighborhoods. Every county sheriff speed trap I have ever seen is out on a lonely country road with an artificially low speed limit. Better yet, where the speed limit suddenly drops 10-20 mph for no apparent reason. I challenged him on the point that I really doubt their complaints come from those areas, but yet their enforcement is focused in them. Because it is an easy ticket. He had no response for that observation.

So, yes - some oversight. Where do the complaints originate, vs. where do they choose to enforce? I would bet you a new hat the two are not the same. In the end, they can hold up a fistful of tickets and exclaim they are "doing something". But the complaints continue to come in, because they are doing nothing in the areas where people actually care.

[9dreizig]

Originally Posted by jyl

One of these suggestions is not practical. Mandatory jury trial for every speeding violation would be crazy expensive, not to mention forcing lots more people to respond to jury summons. I'd be angry if my county taxes rose to pay for jurors' fees and additional courtrooms and prosecutors, and I had to miss work to repeatedly sit in a jury box for speeding violations.

In general, I think the answer is to set speed limits at realistic and reasonable levels. When highway speed limits were 55 mph, that was ridiculous and I was speeding all the time. On highways where the limit is now 70 mph, that seems more reasonable and I don't speed much. On some highways, I think the limit should be raised further, to 80 mph. Same on local streets, sometimes a 25 mph limit is sensible, other times a 35 mph limit is unrealistically low. The speed survey requirement makes sense (IIRC, in CA there is such a requirement for local roads of a certain size.)

Also, the penalties have to be reasonable and on a sliding scale. 10 mph over in a 70 mph section should be a minor fine ($50?), 30 mph over should be a major fine ($500?).

I'd also like records and logs of speed enforcement operations to be available to the public. So that media, watchdog citizen groups, etc can investigate and expose problems.

If the speed limits and penalties are set properly, and outside scrutiny is enabled, I have no problem with vigorous enforcement.

The problem if you are not entitled to a jury you get what Dotore is getting now in WA,, just some rubber stamp judge filling the county coffers. , hell make it a 3 man jury to keep costs down.

The key is to keep the $$ from going directly into the pockets of local government, hence it should go directly to road improvement or schools maybe on a national level.

[NICKG]

the police enforcement is horrifying in nj...we rated #1 in the worst states to drive in. with the way things are going there is a chance of a revolt as it is in the non dem areas (re the areas that pay for everything else)
the only way of getting off a ticket is to have a video syste on the car...or hope the cop does not show for court

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by NICKG

the police enforcement is horrifying in nj...we rated #1 in the worst states to drive in. with the way things are going there is a chance of a revolt as it is in the non dem areas (re the areas that pay for everything else)
the only way of getting off a ticket is to have a video syste on the car...or hope the cop does not show for court

My folks live on LBI and there are signs there that read "Smile! You're on radar camera" or "Wanna meet our judge? Exceed 25mph." Such a fascist police state. Their state troopers look like Gestapo thugs. And my folks wonder why I never want to visit them. Well, it's a two hour drive on NJ roads to get to where they live in NJ, that's why.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

The problem if you are not entitled to a jury you get what Dotore is getting now in WA,, just some rubber stamp judge filling the county coffers. , hell make it a 3 man jury to keep costs down.

The key is to keep the $$ from going directly into the pockets of local government, hence it should go directly to road improvement or schools maybe on a national level.

Even a three person jury costs money. Maybe better to have traffic ticket trials handled by rotating judges - pull municipal court judges, commissioners, volunteer attorneys to come in and do a day every couple months. Just break the system of the same "judge" handling the cases every day and getting too cozy with the police.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

My folks live on LBI and there are signs there that read "Smile! You're on radar camera" or "Wanna meet our judge? Exceed 25mph." Such a fascist police state. Their state troopers look like Gestapo thugs. And my folks wonder why I never want to visit them. Well, it's a two hour drive on NJ roads to get to where they live in NJ, that's why.

New Jermany.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by jyl

Even a three person jury costs money. Maybe better to have traffic ticket trials handled by rotating judges - pull municipal court judges, commissioners, volunteer attorneys to come in and do a day every couple months. Just break the system of the same "judge" handling the cases every day and getting too cozy with the police.

That's the state convincing the state. That's a no go.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

That's the state convincing the state. That's a no go.

Probably not as bad as you'd fear. The typical judge or commissioner (especially if you pull them from the civil side) has no great affinity for traffic enforcement officers, and certainly the typical volunteer attorney doesn't (you could even pull them from the defense bar).

In theory, the "fairest" trial would be from 12 jurors. If jurors and their time were free, great. But for cost reasons and juror availability reasons, I don't think its practical.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by jyl

Probably not as bad as you'd fear. The typical judge or commissioner (especially if you pull them from the civil side) has no great affinity for traffic enforcement officers, and certainly the typical volunteer attorney doesn't (you could even pull them from the defense bar).

In theory, the "fairest" trial would be from 12 jurors. If jurors and their time were free, great. But for cost reasons and juror availability reasons, I don't think its practical.

So, we shelve our Constitutional rights when they become impractical?

Again, I think the only reason so many tickets get written is because it is so easy to prosecute them. Re-establishment of the proper relationship between the citizen and his state - where the state is answerable to the citizen, not the other way around - would leave the state looking for better things to do.

I would venture to guess that the vast majority of traffic tickets are written in situations where, if the motorist were allowed to continue, absolutely no harm would come of it to anyone. So why bother? Simple, it's the money. And the ease with which it is collected. Re-establish our rights in traffic court, and only those cases that truly represent a danger to the rest of us would ever make it that far.