Hi, this is my first post on this board, I was planning on just lurking, but I wanted to adress expathk's points.

First, I don't think that I read any posts in this thread that were too insulting towards police officers, nor did I get the feeling that anyone really wanted to blast them in any way. That said, let's address why someone would fight a ticket when they knew that they were guilty.

Speed limits are set by the government for political reasons. In the 50s, 70 or 80 mph limits were the norm, and in some places there were no daytime limits at all. Then, the fuel crisis and increasing environmental concerns hit at around the same time, the late 60s-early 70s. The national 55-mph limit was instituted, for, if not perfectly supported, at least scientifically-based reasons. However, we have since gone way beyond the need for a speed limit for either fuel economy or pollution reasons, as cars are so clean and efficient that the difference between 55 and 100 is more or less negligable for a modern car. Note I said car, not SUV. Therefore, why did the law stay? The new reason is for safety. Now, I don't agree that you can make a law, and then create a reason for it. Laws should address needs; laws should not be created and then have to be creatively defended. I can point you to hundreds of studies and comparisons where it shows that speed limits do not affect the speeds people drive, the accident rate, the highway death toll, etc. The reasons that speed limits exist at the arbitrary levels they do now are because a) Insurance companies and municipalities make too much money from them to change, and B) blatant nanny-ism.

Therefore, when you, me, or anyone else gets pulled over, we are found to be violating an arbitrary, unfair law that has no scientific or practical backing. It isn't like bank robbery, assault, or murder where a clear violation of someone's rights is present; you are just found guilty of acting in a way that is acceptable to the majority of the US population, because the majority speeds. In a democracy, the majority should make the rules, therefore any rule the majority violates is inappropriate.

If I fight a ticket in court, I do not feel to be on morally questionable ground. I am not asserting that I did not break a law, I am questioning the application of the law in my case. I am asking why I, a responsible American who was acting in a way that is permissible to the majority of my peers, should be fined and punished for this act.

Basically, this post is a long-winded (sorry) way of asking, Okay, yes, I broke the law, but if the law is unreasonable and wrong, why should I not try to avoid the punishment for breaking it? Is breaking the law immoral if the law itself is not moral? I do not think so, and that's why I can plead innocence even when I know I am technically guilty.

Chris at Nova

Chris? Your first post was a great one! Many of your points I agree with. But it's an age old debate...when should individual liberty stop? When should big brother step in?

Insurance companies are the epitome of immorality. If anyone takes the concept of insurance for granted, then they are not concerned with the concept of liberty. This whole thing with the tickets is a game played out by society and depicted in the usual Saturday morning cartoon. I don't take the ruse any more seriously than the cartoon. I certainly am not going to lay down to a random selection of enforcement while dozens speed by. I will take the game to the next level to see if random selection doesn't work in my favor when the cop doesn't show up in court.

Furthermore, when traffic school is offered as a way to completely delete the citation from the record, that shows a complete disregard for the principle. One mitigation from the absolute, and the game is on.