ticket for passing on double yellow, not speeding

[berettafan]

First of all it's a matter of fun and convenience vs safety. Not even remotely comparable to a second amendment right to defend myself against tyrants and criminals who would steal from my pockets and hurt my family.

Secondly you will find i am a very, very strong anti-road tax person. I HATE me a state cop wasting my tax dollars idling on the side of the road looking for people doing 10 over when he SHOULD be out finding child molesters and illegal aliens and murderers.

The notion is not unquestioning...it's questioning with a dose of what i would think is common sense.

It simply isn't right to say that if i feel one should pay the piper for passing in a double yellow stretch that i must also suggest laying down and playing dead when the anti's say 'we want your guns' or any other issue.

[Jeff Higgins]

I guess we will have to disagree on what I see as bigger ramifications concerning this kind of law and its enforcement. I believe when a citizenry has given up the fight in seemingly insignificant areas, and allows itself to be governed by law in such areas, it makes it all the easier to foist more significant restrictions and laws upon that citizenry. In other words, when we have defered our judgement in matters as insignificant as when we feel it may be safe to pass one another, it becomes increasingly difficult to draw the line somewhere, anywhere, on "more important" issues.

When a government becomes used to having a say in everything we do, well, it wants a say in everything we do. The whole thing is interdependant, inextricably linked - if a government does not trust us to make common sense, rational, adult decisions in our driving (for example, but it could be any other area of our lives), how long do you think the mindset that drives that misstrust (or need to control) will continue to trust us with the "big stuff"? Like self defense?

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I guess we will have to disagree on what I see as bigger ramifications concerning this kind of law and its enforcement. I believe when a citizenry has given up the fight in seemingly insignificant areas, and allows itself to be governed by law in such areas, it makes it all the easier to foist more significant restrictions and laws upon that citizenry. In other words, when we have defered our judgement in matters as insignificant as when we feel it may be safe to pass one another, it becomes increasingly difficult to draw the line somewhere, anywhere, on "more important" issues.

When a government becomes used to having a say in everything we do, well, it wants a say in everything we do. The whole thing is interdependant, inextricably linked - if a government does not trust us to make common sense, rational, adult decisions in our driving (for example, but it could be any other area of our lives), how long do you think the mindset that drives that misstrust (or need to control) will continue to trust us with the "big stuff"? Like self defense?

I think the distinction that other posters are trying to make is that these laws have already been enacted, whether that was right or wrong is moot.

The OP did not cross the line in some display of civil disobedience with the intent to publicize and draw attention to our flawed system in hopes of bringing about change.

He crossed it because he was having fun. Period.

And he got caught.

There is a distinct difference between working the system to get laws changed and "getting away with it" because you don't agree with the law.

[Red88Carrera]

I believe when a citizenry has given up the fight in seemingly insignificant areas, and allows itself to be governed by law in such areas, it makes it all the easier to foist more significant restrictions and laws upon that citizenry. In other words, when we have defered our judgement in matters as insignificant as when we feel it may be safe to pass one another, it becomes increasingly difficult to draw the line somewhere, anywhere, on "more important" issues.

I'm just gonna start blowing through STOP signs whenever I feel it is safe. And when there are no kids in a school zone, why not just cruise at whatever speed you feel is safe. Hell, if I can take a shorter route down a one-way street, the wrong way, I don't see anything wrong with that either, do you? Get a grip!

[lukeh]

This is a tough one and I don't think it's as black and white and many feel. I live out in farm county and all the time you'll come up behind a tractor pulling a load. He'll be going as slow as 25 mph in a 55 and driving half in the gravel and half in the road. NOBODY around here sits behind the guy going 25 and waiting for a passing zone. You see if it's clear and quickly cross the double yellow and in a few seconds are around the guy. Now while this is technically breaking the law I've never heard of anyone ever getting a ticket for doing this. This tells me around here this law is more of a common sense situation and not as simple as saying crossing the double yellow lines to pass is wrong. I think it depends on the situation as is open to interpretation by the officer.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Red88Carrera

I'm just gonna start blowing through STOP signs whenever I feel it is safe. And when there are no kids in a school zone, why not just cruise at whatever speed you feel is safe. Hell, if I can take a shorter route down a one-way street, the wrong way, I don't see anything wrong with that either, do you? Get a grip!

We have long since taken this discussion a bit beyond the simple premise on which this thread was started. We are now discussing, on a purely philosophical level, more the nature of the relationship between the government and the governed. I'm sorry that we lost you, as your childish little exaggerations so clearly indicate we have.

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

I think the distinction that other posters are trying to make is that these laws have already been enacted, whether that was right or wrong is moot.

The point I'm trying to make is that just because the law has been enacted, it does not mean the point is moot. It is anything but moot. We are suffocating under such laws, with no real, practical way of working within the system to repeal or change them.

The only reason this suffocating blanket of petty laws continues to envelope us is because we roll over and let it. Because our government has denied us the very most basic of our Constitutional rights when it charges us with these petty violations - the rights to due process, a jury trial, and representation. It is wrong for our government to have built this system based upon a denial of those rights. This system would never survive the scrutiny of due process, in front of a jury of our peers.

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

The OP did not cross the line in some display of civil disobedience with the intent to publicize and draw attention to our flawed system in hopes of bringing about change.

He crossed it because he was having fun. Period.

And he got caught.

Agreed. There were certainly no thought of any sort of higher, nobler good when he executed the pass. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying he harmed no one. He endangered no one. Therefor, there should be no law governing what he did. There should not have been any reason whatsoever for his actions to have come under the scrutiny of the authorities.

But his actions did, and they only did so because these very same authorities have made it ever so easy on themselves to level and prosecute such charges. Like I said before, if a citizen's transgressions are severe enough to warrant charges being leveled against him by our government, then they are serious enough to warrant the full, due process of law.

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

There is a distinct difference between working the system to get laws changed and "getting away with it" because you don't agree with the law.

Once again, I agree. But also once again, I must state how important I feel it is to regain citizen involvement in all such cases (or actually all cases of any kind) in which our government accuses a citizen of wrong doing. If the government has a valid case, it needs to vet that case in front of us, the citizenry, not itself. These kinds of petty laws, this kind of petty enforcement, would go away overnight if the government was once again held to that standard.

Originally Posted by lukeh

This is a tough one and I don't think it's as black and white and many feel. I live out in farm county and all the time you'll come up behind a tractor pulling a load. He'll be going as slow as 25 mph in a 55 and driving half in the gravel and half in the road. NOBODY around here sits behind the guy going 25 and waiting for a passing zone. You see if it's clear and quickly cross the double yellow and in a few seconds are around the guy. Now while this is technically breaking the law I've never heard of anyone ever getting a ticket for doing this. This tells me around here this law is more of a common sense situation and not as simple as saying crossing the double yellow lines to pass is wrong. I think it depends on the situation as is open to interpretation by the officer.

Same thing around here. Hell, the school bus, full of children, will cross the double yellow to get around that tractor. The horror - think of the children. Technically illegal, as illegal as the OP's pass, yet I cannot imagine a cop ticketing anyone under these conditions. Why? Because we can all see it is entirely safe to do so, no matter what "they" have to say about it. As was, no doubt, the OP's pass on his motorcycle. Common sense, folks.

Haul this school bus driver into court for something like this, and most of us would laugh any authorities with the audacity to do so right out of that court, as we should. Presented with the circumstances of the OP's pass, most of us would wonder why the authorities would choose to waste time and resources pursuing a case. That's why "they" don't want us involved. That's why it is imperative we become involved.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by berettafan

if they felt it safe to pass there they'd have put a broken line.

it ain't just about you. jackass.

Incorrect. If they think they can make more money/revenue from tickets, they'll put a solid line. And speed traps. And red-light cameras. And all the rest. It's driven by revenue - the safety benefits are incidental and unintended (and used to rationalize this stuff to the sheeple).

Who has more to lose by a passing attempt gone bad - the person making the pass or some government bureaucrat who's got a clear conflict of interest (i.e. maximize revenue)? Here's a hint - one of those individuals stands to lose their license, their life, their car and/or many other possibilities if they get it wrong. The other gets a paycheck.

[Red88Carrera]

Jeff,
We live in a Republic, a nation of laws. Without them, we truly would have chaos. When society allows individuals to govern themselves, individuals start to feel a sense of entitlement.(like crossing a double yellow line and get away with it because you feel it is safe.)
I agree with you that our government has overstepped its original mandate of protecting the citizens of this country, but I disagree with your course to turn it around. Breaking a law, no matter how insignificant we think it may be, has consequences. Flooding the courts with cases will have the opposite outcome that you are looking for. More court cases=more judges, more courtrooms, more jails, more government workers. Who do you think pays for that?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Stupid laws should be challenged. Fighting them in court is a good first step.

Deciding to what extent/degree we should dumb down society should be governed by the public, not the bureaucrat.

[Red88Carrera]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Stupid laws should be challenged. Fighting them in court is a good first step.

When you go to court to fight a traffic ticket, you're not challenging the 'stupid' law. You are challenging your guilt of the 'stupid' law.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

If everyone does something without consequence, wouldn't that represent a stupid law? Such things eventually either stop being enforced or deliberate efforts are made to purge them from the law books (although usually it's the former rather than the latter - the law books are cluttered with old/obscure/outdated/stupid laws).

[RWebb]

it is more like one law fits all - as in sliding thru a stop sign on a lonely road at 3 am


Paul - I sent a request to ODOT re changing the lines - we'll see what they say

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Red88Carrera

Jeff,
We live in a Republic, a nation of laws. Without them, we truly would have chaos.

I agree. We must have laws to govern how we interact with one another. When we are accused of breaking one of those laws, however, it should never, under any circumstances, be up to the authorities to determine our guilt. They must, somehow, in all cases be forced back into presenting their charges against one of us to the rest of us. If, and only if the rest of us can be convinced the charges have merit, should a fellow citizen be allowed to be punished in any way by our government. The government cannot be allowed, under any circumstances, to judge its own case brought against a citizen, one of us.

Originally Posted by Red88Carrera

When society allows individuals to govern themselves, individuals start to feel a sense of entitlement.(like crossing a double yellow line and get away with it because you feel it is safe.)

Similarly, when a government is allowed to press charges against a citizen and then decide innocence or guilt under those charges, it will soon corrupt its laws and its enforcement of those laws. We are seeing that here, today, in the United States. We have allowed our government to remove the citizen from the judicial process in what we perceive (and what they have convinced us to be) "minor" charges, or "infractions". The clearest, most obvious example of this is in the area of traffic law. The inevitable result has been fast-track, revenue-centric "justice" that has no semblance to "justice" whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Red88Carrera

agree with you that our government has overstepped its original mandate of protecting the citizens of this country, but I disagree with your course to turn it around. Breaking a law, no matter how insignificant we think it may be, has consequences. Flooding the courts with cases will have the opposite outcome that you are looking for. More court cases=more judges, more courtrooms, more jails, more government workers. Who do you think pays for that?

Left to their own devices, I have no doubt that our government would simply grow this branch. They have to somehow get that past us, however. The key to all of this is a return to citizen involvement in the justice system by way of every charge the government brings against a citizen being heard in front of a jury. Like I mentioned earlier, I believe this mandate would soon put an end to petty, victimless, revenue-centric law and enforcement. Once we all start to get a glimpse of what is going on, and what motivates it, it would soon come to an end.

The only way the current level of revenue driven enforcement of petty, victimless infractions survives is because most folks are not aware of what is really happening. I'm surprised just how many well educated, informed people I meet who have no idea that in traffic court, here in Washington, they have no right to representation, appeal, or a jury trial. Or that the standard of evidence the authorities hold themselves to is that of "preponderance" - a standard meant for a civil trial, i.e. a dispute between two citizens, where the judge must render a decision often on the slimmest of margins. Folks just assume they would have the right to representation, appeal, a jury trial, and that the state would have to prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt". They are surprised to learn that such is not the case.

The authorities have taken the position that all of that is just too much bother over such minor infractions. My contention is that if their charges are really so minor and insignificant as to deny us our right to due process, then they are also too minor and insignificant to bring in the first place.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by Gogar

IMO it's not worth fighting because you did break the law. The 'common sense' part of it doesn't really matter to the judge, especially if it's the typical "traffic court revenue-generator" situation.

WTF is up with all of these posts lately???? Totally agree!

"I broke the law but am not happy that I got caught. How can I get out of this and continue breaking the law and not getting caught???"

Dude, you got caught passing in a double yellow. Assume that you know that its not allowed to pass in a double yellow? Either quit whining and pay the ticket or turn in your drivers license and come back after you have studied the test book and taken the exam again and KNOW the rules.

[jyl]

43,000 dead per year in 6 million auto accidents prove that drivers frequently misjudge what is safe or not safe.

Almost none of those 42,000 were suicides. Those drivers thought that passing on a double yellow or whatever they were doing, was safe. They were wrong. In 6 miilions cases, they caused an accident. In 42,000 cases, they caused a death. Often not their own.

Traffic laws are meant to prevent the most obvious dangerous acts - passing where it's not safe and so on.

As our two Jeffs point out, these laws are imperfect. Sometimes passing there is safe. If you're on a machine that does 0-60 in 5 sec, let's say. In a perfect world, the system would monitor you as you approach the spot, consider your skills and mindset and your machine's performance and all the other traffic and the weather, and display a personalized sign just for you. "Safe to pass, Mr Higgins". "Do not pass, Mr Phile".

Ain't going to happen. Not feasible. So, we have the laws that we have, that attempt to be the correct rule for most cases most of the time.

It's not a perfect situation, but it is what is reasonably feasible. So, either improve the situation - get one bit of road re-signed, or invent the magical personalized traffic law machine - or obey the law - or pay up without all these unseemly whining.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by jyl

43,000 dead per year in 6 million auto accidents prove that drivers frequently misjudge what is safe or not safe.

Almost none of those 42,000 were suicides. Those drivers thought that passing on a double yellow or whatever they were doing, was safe. They were wrong. In 6 miilions cases, they caused an accident. In 42,000 cases, they caused a death. Often not their own.

Exactly.

POP this is the answer to your question about who has more to lose.

Any reasonable person agrees the gov'ts have overstepped in many areas. I personally don't think this is one of them.


Jeff i do understand what you're saying in that we do tend to be frogs in water being brought to a boil. We surely must be vigilant and call BS when we see it. I share your attitude to great extent on that just seem to draw the line in a different place.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by jyl

43,000 dead per year in 6 million auto accidents prove that drivers frequently misjudge what is safe or not safe.

Almost none of those 42,000 were suicides. Those drivers thought that passing on a double yellow or whatever they were doing, was safe. They were wrong. In 6 miilions cases, they caused an accident. In 42,000 cases, they caused a death. Often not their own.

Traffic laws are meant to prevent the most obvious dangerous acts - passing where it's not safe and so on.

As our two Jeffs point out, these laws are imperfect. Sometimes passing there is safe. If you're on a machine that does 0-60 in 5 sec, let's say. In a perfect world, the system would monitor you as you approach the spot, consider your skills and mindset and your machine's performance and all the other traffic and the weather, and display a personalized sign just for you. "Safe to pass, Mr Higgins". "Do not pass, Mr Phile".

Ain't going to happen. Not feasible. So, we have the laws that we have, that attempt to be the correct rule for most cases most of the time.

It's not a perfect situation, but it is what is reasonably feasible. So, either improve the situation - get one bit of road re-signed, or invent the magical personalized traffic law machine - or obey the law - or pay up without all these unseemly whining.

The clear implicatiojn of all of this is that we simply cannot pass enough laws to prevent this sort of thing. A certain percentage of the population just isn't paying attention. A certain percentage of the population is irresponsible, reckless, and just plain stupid. Legislating to this "lowest common denominator" is a lost cause - we have discussed this concept on several occasions in the past. The net result is there is no change in their behavior, because they could care less, and the rest of us are burdened with silly, petty laws that are enforced for all of the wrong reasons.

The vast majority of us will behave in a responsible manner even in the absence of laws compelling us to do so. The vast majority of us exercise solid judgement without having someone else to do so for us. Again, no laws are going to reel in those who do not. Those who are the real target of such laws, or the justification used to foist those laws upon us, are simply not burdened by those laws. They just don't care; they are going to do what they are going to do regardless of the consequences, regardless of the number of laws and regulations telling them not to.

You failed to even address the main component of all of this that I have been harping on the most, that of citizen involvement in the prosecution of such violations. On the one hand, our government officials claim these laws and their enforcement "save lives". On the other hand, they don't feel charges of having violated such laws are serious enough to merit due process in court.

In the cases with some real merit, such as some maniac weaving in and out of traffic at high speed, or someone speeding down the sidewalk in a school zone, a jury would certainly have no trouble seeing the merit, and handing down a "guilty" verdict. In the vast majority of traffic cases, however - those consisting of the typical "72 in a 60", where the flow of traffic is really 70 - a jury would quite rightly ask "why on earth are you wasting our time?".

I guess in the end that is all that I'm getting at - we certainly need laws, rules, regulations, whatever, to manage how we interact with one another. I won't ever dispute that. However - and this is a huge "however" - we desperately need to return to the temperance of such laws that can only be provided by citizen involvement through the jury system. Our authorities have run amok. Their motivations are less than pure. They need some adult supervision.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I can't believe how many folks are saying "just pay the fine".

Seems the modern American has given up. The original pretext behind this great nation was to be one where the government, and the laws it writes, were to serve the people. Now many of you seem entirely accepting of the 180 degree about-face we've experienced in that relationship where today, the people serve the government and the litany of laws it has written.

This case is a great example of where we have arrived. No harm was done. There was no potential to have done any harm. The idea that our government can now drag a citizen into court under such circumstances, and not provide that citizen the benefit of due process (a jury trial, representation, right to appeal, etc.) both saddens and enrages me. The general population's acceptance of this change in our relationship with our government perplexes me. I guess many do not see it as "worth it" to fight the small battles in an effort to reverse this relationship, and to return it to its proper order.

We have, through our laziness and apathy, made it far too easy for our government to badger us with and endless laundry list of nuisance laws. There is now a law to cover just about every aspect of our lives. "Violators" of such petty laws tend to be, for the most part, otherwise fine and upstanding citizens. Men and women who are "too busy", who no longer think it is "worth it" to fight back. They are really just too lazy and apathetic; they have really just given up and have subjected themselves to this over bearing government authority in their lives. The worst part is, since they seem to be the majority, they are dragging those of us who demand better, who demand a return to the proper citizen/government relationship, down with them. Laziness and apathy are carrying the day. How sad.

We all hate intrusive laws. We would love to be the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington guy that fights for the little guy and justice. The problem is in reality you are fighting a VAST army of government bureaucrats that are doing the minimum amount of work to get a paycheck and don’t give a rat’s ass about justice. Think of the typical DMV on steroids. The court system is there to put away bad guys, and to do that they need revenue. To prosecute murderers, robbers, and the average bad guy takes a lot of money. The easy way to get it is from traffic fines. The only way that will ever change is to get the legislature to fund the court systems properly, and write sensible traffic laws. But the average legislator knows he can get a ticket fixed for himself and his family.

[nynor]

well, let me give a couple more details, which those that are hating on me, the jackass, can go on and debate:

#1 there were three of us. the two of us riding sport bikes got the tickets. the guy riding the cruiser did not, even though he crossed the double line TWICE and dropped his bike RIGHT ON IT on a curve trying to get it turned around before reaching where i was STOPPED. it is clear that he is "enforcing the law" prejudicially (which begs the question: then what good is the law, if it only applies to some folks?).

#2 i finally figured out why i am so pissed about this. i've gotten tickets before, it happens, i got caught. the thing that got me so pissed off was that the officer got out of his truck, screaming at me, and didn't stop screaming at me until there was an audience. frankly, it was kinda threatening and if i'd have been thinking a little quicker i might have called for another officer to talk about assault charges. of course, then the condescension began, and then there were the three "you people" statements. the whole thing was very unprofessional and created a very dangerous situation on many levels.

now, i may have crossed the double yellow line. no admission of guilt here. but yelling at me threateningly is unprofessional, uncalled for, and counterproductive.

i am making a complaint to his supervisor as i write this.

my favorite part of the whole "discussion" was when he asked me how long i had been riding "bullet bikes".... my answer of 23 years FINALLY silenced him. the only thing he had to say after that was "REALLY!?" yeah, really. when you were in diapers i was taking rider's safety courses and such.

[mossguy]

Well I guess you told him!

Best,
Tom