Redflex is the Australian company that runs many if not most of America’s red-light camera programs. Although I’m not a city resident, I attended two Redflex Q&A sessions in Canton, OH over the past two nights. About twenty people attended the first meeting. Around sixty showed up at the final of four meetings—once people caught wind of what was at stake. All of the meetings included city council members, city safety director Thomas Nesbitt and Hizzoner the Mayor, William Healy. Redflex’s Executive Vice President Aaron Rosenberg began the first meeting with the video above. The clip was shown without warning. Hello and boom: a graphic and violent accident of the type Redflex’s cameras are supposed to prevent. No emotional blackmail there, then.

Rosenberg claimed the accident happened in Dayton, OH (it’s also featured on the company’s website). According to Rosenberg, the Chrysler PT Cruiser blows through the red in the curb lane doing 33 in a 35. This after the light had been red for 28.4 seconds.

As I slowly overcame the high-school-drivers’-ed-style shock of seeing a quick clip of carnage, I became increasingly angry and appalled. Why is it OK for a company selling safety equipment to use such blatant shock tactics to rally taxpayers to their for-profit cause? With aspiring teen drivers, you can understand the value of “tough love.” But while good profits may come from scare tactics, good governance does not.

Whose meeting is this anyway? By allowing Redflex to start the evening in this cynical, manipulative manner, Canton was revealing the truth: the fix was in. And then I started to dissect the accident. . . .

We were shown the brief clip of footage. Nothing more. No information on the cross-street speed limit. The Subaru was going plenty fast, but who knows if he was speeding?

The hapless pedestrian was strolling along across the street AFTER the cross-street light had changed to green. Doesn’t at least a small part of the blame rest on his decision to cross that street against signage? Cities and towns put up those Walk/Don’t Walk signals for a reason.

Also, did the pedestrian have a reasonable amount of time to cross?

I remember an article about an elderly woman getting ticketed for blocking traffic in a crosswalk. A TV crew investigated and found that a group of high school students couldn’t make it across the intersection before the light turned green at a dead run.

Furthermore, what exactly did Redflex’s camera do to prevent this accident? Ipso facto, nothing. Supposedly, Redflex’s systems reduce this kind of T-bone crash rate. But there’s no independent data on this for one simple reason: it’s not true.

In fact, red-light cameras are notorious for causing rear end collisions. While a spectacular crash like the one shown is particularly horrific, a large[r] number of rear-end collisions would lead to a large[r] numbers of whiplash cases. It’s a chronic injury that can literally ruin lives.

Last but not least, even if no T-boning accident had occurred, it looks like the SUV could have struck and maybe even killed the pedestrian.

To know the truth about this “instructive” incident, I would like to see the actual accident report and hear an analysis from a safety expert whose salary doesn’t depend on a red-light camera contract.

As those of you familiar with my screen name (SexCpotatoes) might imagine, I gave the city’s suits and the Redflex EVP a hard time, asking plenty of pointed questions. When pressed about Houston and Denver’s increased accident rate after red-light camera installation, Rosenberg responded “That was not our company.”

I asked city traffic engineer Dan Moeglin why his department hadn’t implemented any other safety measures: number boards that count down to red, synchronizing more traffic lights through town, or extending the yellow times. “I have all the traffic info about yellow light timing and such right here, I can go over them with you if you want, but these numbers give even me a headache.”

He also said that “yellow light duration is set by a formula taking into account speed limit, and width of the roadway.”

I briefly touched on the lawsuit against Redflex regarding the radar equipment they’d imported and distributed in violation of federal law. “That was an issue with a sticker not being properly placed or affixed,” Rosenberg demurred.

So a company devoted to catching motorists who must follow the letter of the law down to the last tenth of a second justifies breaking the law, perjuring themselves and falsifying certification documents as a clerical error. Nice.

I’m starting a petition to get the red-light camera issue placed on the ballot for the next general election. I leave it up to you, TTAC’s Best and Brightest, to decide whether using this crash footage to sell camera systems to greedy cities is morally reprehensible. Meanwhile, if you want to know why Canton is even entertaining this idea, I suggest you ignore the video and, as always, follow the money.

Houston Mayor Bill White selected Urban Politics Professor Robert Stein of Rice University to create a report on the engineering safety performance of the city’s first fifty automated ticketing machines. (Professor Stein’s wife, Marty, is employed by the city of Houston as a top aide to the mayor.) In a November 2007 email, White emphasized his personal interest in the subject at the beginning of the project. “Let’s just make sure that we study things that really matter for decision-making,” Mayor White wrote to Professor Stein. “Our funds for public policy research are scarce. . . . I am not suggesting that somebody alter one’s conclusions and I am not trying to influence the conclusions. What I am trying to do is give some helpful advice from a decision-maker concerning how to avoid analytical overkill.” The point was not lost on Stein whose employer received $50k for the red light camera study and who depended (depends?) on the city for funding of several other projects.

By the beginning of 2008, Stein worried that the data he compiled were not favorable to the city. He let officials know that this should be expected.

“Recall our own findings match what is reported in [this Tampa Tribune] article and in the public health study cited in the article,” Stein wrote in a March 14 email to Houston Police Sergeant Michael Muench. “Tim and I have reviewed ten years’ worth of studies on red light camera programs and the tentative evidence that those studies using the weakest designs are most likely to report a reduction in side impact collisions after the installation of red light cameras. More rigorous and appropriate research designs (like the one we use for the Houston program) fail to detect this reduction after the installation of red light cameras.”

In light of this, Houston police began to push Stein to weaken his design to match techniques used in studies conducted by insurance industry researchers and others with an interest in promoting the use of photo enforcement. In an April 29 meeting with police, Stein agreed to reconsider his results.

“Dr. Stein’s analysis of the original 20 intersections from Sept–Dec 2006 found 169 accidents,” Houston Police Lieutenant Jonathan Zera wrote. “However, HPD countered that the findings were flawed because: 1. All accidents within 500′ of the intersection were being counted. 2. All accidents within the intersection were being counted even if neither vehicle’s approach to the intersection was regulated by a red light camera. As such, Dr. Stein will re-analyze the 169 accidents.”

Realizing that an early copy of Stein’s work would be critical in understanding the truth about Houston’s red light camera program, a pair of attorneys made a request for a copy of the report’s first draft. When the city rejected the request, Randall L. Kallinen and Paul Kubosh filed a lawsuit forcing disclosure of the correspondence between Stein and the city. After reviewing the documents, Kallinen gave Professor Stein partial credit for his work.

“While Stein at first seemed to have leaned toward the police he rejected most of their attempts to change his report,” Kallinen told TheNewspaper. “He did however mislead the public through the report and to the press when he said accidents were increasing citywide when he knew for a fact they were decreasing citywide.”

Stein’s published report on the Houston program documented an increase in accidents at intersections that had red light cameras, but the greatest increase happened in the directions where the camera was not looking. Stein offered to explain this anomaly by creating the hypothesis that these “non-monitored” approaches were equivalent to intersection locations that had no red light cameras at all. This hypothesis—despite the negative data–allowed Stein to conclude that the cameras proved useful in reversing a general trend toward increased accidents throughout the city.

“Why have accidents at non-monitored approaches increased so dramatically in the past year?” Stein asked in his December report. “As suggested above, these results could be evidence of an increase in collisions across the city. . . . Using this methodology, the new analysis could reveal if, in fact, the red light cameras mitigated a general increase in accidents citywide. This observation, if found, would both confirm the public safety benefit of the red light cameras in Houston as well as advocate the expansion of the program.”

The problem with this theory was that there was no increase in collisions across the city—and Stein knew it before his report was published. Houston police documents show that accidents steadily dropped each year from 2004 to 2008. There were 81,238 accidents in 2004 and 67,405 in 2007–a 17 percent decrease.

“Wow, this is perfect, thanks so much,” Stein wrote in response to a November 13 email from a Houston officer containing a complete set of declining accident figures.

Several local media at the time painted a positive image for the red light camera program by widely reporting Stein’s citywide accident theory.

I agree with TTAC reviewer Stephan Wilkinson : the new Nissan GT-R is the old Honda NSX. Once people actually start driving Nissan’s “everyday supercar”– as opposed to simply jumping on the hype bandwagon and bench racing numbers supplied by Nissan– they’ll appreciate the parallel. Although I'm still looking forward to my first hands-on experience with the GT-R, the reality of the car’s true nature and importance in automotive history is right under the fan-boys’ noses.

The GT-R allegedly 'outperforms' thoroughbred supercars at a fraction of the price. Yes, but what price? The sticker price, or the in-your-garage price? Considering the hype surrounding the car and the limited production numbers, it will be years before a single new $70k GT-R will be sold for under $100k. At the moment, comparing the Nissan to say, a Corvette Z06, obfuscates the truth. But what the [Green] Hell…

No small part of the current GT-R lovefest can be attributed to the car’s 7:38 Nürburgring lap time. As TTAC has pointed out, there are real questions about the Green Hellmobile’s qualifications for the title “second fastest production car around the ‘Ring.” The GT-R's suspension was modified from the current Japanese production model, supposedly to reflect the American and European spec. Supposedly. Will anyone get a chance to compare the fabled ‘Ring runner and a final production car? I doubt it.

Meanwhile, the YouTube video of the Nissan’s “historic run” clearly shows that the GT-R had a flying start. All other manufacturers testing at the ‘Ring use standing starts for published lap times. The video also proves that the car's lap time was not measured at the exact same location (start and stop). Take these two factors into account, and the 7:40 claim seems highly dubious.

The icing on the cake: GT-R chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno’s subsequent admission from that "We used cut slick tyres." If that doesn’t cancel their claim, nothing does.

In fact, a regular Corvette Z06 would probably beat the GT-R on the Nürburgring. When Road & Track tested the GT-R against the Z06 on a track much smaller than the ‘Ring, they concluded that the GT-R was fast in the corners, but they didn't shed a whole lot of light on how the GT-R performed on the straights. Although the ‘Ring has an enormous amount of corners, it also has some of the longest straight-aways in the world.

In Road & Track’s technical comparo, the GT-R was just as fast to 60mph as the Z06 (despite being less powerful). What many have over-looked is the trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. The Z06 is about seven mph faster than the GT-R. When you look at the graph that accompanies these numbers, the GT-R’s AWD system gave it a clear advantage– but only at the start. Applied to the Green Hell, the Z06 would outpace the GT-R on the straights.

The Z06’s fastest recorded lap time at the Nürburgring is 7:42.9 This lap was driven in 2005 by Jan Magnussen in 'muggy' conditions. Last year, Chevy revised the suspension on all Corvette models including the Z06. In theory, the new suspension and better weather conditions should be enough for a Z06 to equal or even better the Nissan GT-R's true time of +7:40. When you consider that the Z06 can achieve this time with a GM-standard standing start and production tires, it seems obvious that the GT-R is no match for the Z06 around the ring.

But what does it all mean? Well, not much actually. Every racetrack is different and some cars are suited to some tracks while others are not. The GT-R is suited to smaller tracks like the one R&T used, and the Z06 is suited to longer and faster ones like the ‘Ring.

So why did I bother ranting about this? Nissan has chosen to flaunt its Nürburgring lap times to show the world that their new, high-tech Nissan GT-R is the new bang-for-the-buck Alpha. But it’s not true. The cheaper Corvette Z06 is still the worlds best [unmodified] performance car bargain. What’s more, if the GT-R cannot handle a stock Z06, then how will it fare against the upcoming ZR1? Never mind the 'almighty' spec V model.

Given the GT-R’s looks and oft-reported lack of driving feel, there’s only one reason anyone would buy the uber-Nissan: to own the fastest thing on the road. In the corners, maybe. If you were committed enough to drive at 10/10ths (never mind how “easy” it is), you could probably blow-off a 911 or similar. Down the straights (the great American pastime), there are faster and cheaper choices– and that’s without exploring relatively inexpensive modifications.

In short, the GT-R is an awesome achievement, but Wilkinson’s right: it’s not all that. 

When we last left our hero, I was dodging post-wine tasting Buicks and Caddys in a hair-brained sprint to Los Angeles before the sun went down. My steed was a sparkle-blue 1981 Corvette with non-functioning headlights. Until this point, I’d been lollygagging along in the right lane. I assumed that the ‘Vette’s engine would crap-out on me if I gave it the boot. But the fear of getting caught with no lights– and then watching the DEA strip the car to the frame– forced my foot to the firewall.

Chevy small blocks are amazing. Yes, this C3 left the factory with just 190 horses. But the mini mill stumped-up 280 ft-lbs. of torque at 1600 rpm. Sadly, I can't tell you how much of a toll the intervening 27 years exacted on the Corvette’s performance– or how fast I was going. Not because the Nixonian speedometer tops out at 85 mph. Because it wasn't working. Regardless, y'all would have loved the burble.

Amazingly, the Corvette was behaving flawlessly. The engine was strong. Sure, you can get more handling from a photograph of a Miata. But around the gentle twists of Paso Robles, the car was aces. Braking? Not so much. And when you hit 'em the car shot left and then right. But I didn’t need any stinking brakes. I had no intention of stopping.

Suddenly, just north of Santa Barbara the right headlamp popped up. As fate would have it, I had left the lights on. You could almost hear the opening bars from Flight of the Valkyrie. "Come on, come on you little shit," I started screaming at the left lamp. "Pop!" Fifteen long, gut-twisting seconds later it did. Sure, I could have got more illumination sitting on the hood and holding a Zippo, but the lights were up! I was going to make it.

If you've never been through Santa Barbara, there are two things you need to know. 1) Eat at Taqueria Super Rica 2) Don't speed.

I've received six speeding tickets in my life. Three were in Santa Barbara. Case in point: as soon as I passed the sign welcoming me to Goleta (once again travelling at sane speeds) I saw a CHP officer climbing back on his hog and a blue BMW taking off from the shoulder. Then I saw a Highway Patrol car. Then another. I would have been toast. Or tased.

Now that I was back to cruising, I had some neurons to spare to contemplate the C3. What a brilliant little car. How did it know to pop those lights then and there? And maybe those neurons were cooked a little, but I realized what was going on. The Corvette knew.

This was it: the poor thing's swan song. It's death rattle. The last chance the tri-decade dog would have to be flogged California style. Sure, they have roads in Euroland. But 'Vettes — especially C3s – were built for the Golden State. Somehow, like a race horse about to be put out to stud, the Corvette knew. This was its victory lap.

Respect. I like how the Sting Ray makes you feel dangerous. And sleazy. It's akin to driving a van with a waterbed in back. You're a bad element; daughters' mothers know it. I can't even tell you how many times I looked in my rearview and caught a wife in the passenger seat checking me and my 'Vette out. Seriously, they couldn't take their eyes off the long, sleek, blue-speckled phallus.

I stopped at the beach to snap some photos and got mobbed by surfers. I've never heard "Dude!" so many times in my life.

I didn't dare turn the engine off, for fear of losing the headlights, but looking at the C3 nestled next to the Pacific Ocean, the zeitgeist of this machine became clear. It's the 70s, man. Sex couldn't kill you. Cocaine couldn't kill you. Rock and roll would never die, but you could get more coke and sex at the disco. The world has since moved on, but this Corvette? Still super awesome.

Before I got home, I stopped off for some tacos. The locals loved the 'Vette. "Dude, that is a beautiful car." Indeed, it is. The C3’s lines are timeless, as aesthetically spot on as anything from Italy or Britain from the 70s. And light years ahead of Japan and Germany.

In fact, I'm sorry my time with this C3 was so short. The seats are comfortable, the engine can get out of its own way and the looks– to paraphrase Vince Neil– can kill. With just a little TLC I could see owning this 'Vette big time. The C3’s currently parked in an undisclosed location, awaiting the Czech's further instructions. I bet I could make Mexico in a matter of hours.

[Read Pt. 1 of 440 Miles by clicking here.] 

By most accounts, I’m a good citizen. I work, I pay taxes, I keep my crimes to myself and I call my mother at least once a week. But I have a wild side. Like a vintage race, this part of my personality just begs to be taken out and let loose from time to time. I’m not going to tell you what I spent my first Bush tax rebate on. But I will tell you that when the $600 arrives in June, I will be at a $10/$20 No Limit table. So, when I was contacted by a guy in Prague to transport a 1981 Corvette from Oakland to a container ship in Los Angeles, I jumped at the chance. How could I lose?

It gets worse: The purchaser– whom we’ll call “Bob”– was actually a middle man for another Czech guy. The plan: wire transfer me the money for the merchandise, a one-way plane ticket and a small fee. You haven’t lived until you’re emailed your bank account info to a former communist country. I telephoned the seller to ask if he wanted a money order or a cashier’s check for the ‘Vette. “Cash,” was his not entirely unpredictable answer.

As I was unsure of the feasibility of a big cash withdrawal on a Saturday, I boarded a flight in Burbank with fifty-five $100 bills burning a worry-hole in my pocket.

Aside from a horrific speckled blue paint job, the Vette’s exterior looked ship shape. The interior was in remarkably good condition, too, with just the usual litany of malaise era Detroit bugaboos — shot HVAC, busted electric seats and a sun cracked dash. After handing over the bankroll, the seller fired her up.

As I headed out on the 880 towards the 101, a Led Zeppelin rock block started. Talk about apropos. “Hey hey mama said the way you move, going make you sweat, gonna make you groove!” Man, I was loving this. And felt just like a Jersey pot dealer. Hey, for all I knew, the gas tank was half-filled with smack.

By the time the last few chords of California ended, I was miserable. The turn signal lever had come off in my hand. There was no way to stop the hot air coming out of the vents, which meant I had to keep the windows down. On the freeway. The clutch literally has 14 inches of travel, and someone in the Czech Republic will be rebuilding a Chevy tranny sooner than later. Did I mention that the shocks are completely blown, and that the T-Tops sound as if they’re about to crack over every single road imperfection? Anyway…

My plan was to do the deed during daylight hours on a Saturday. I opted to take the slower, longer and more congested 101 because I’d be better off if the Corvette broke down. I also wanted to stop along the way and take some pretty pictures of the car along the coast, in a vineyard and maybe even parked in a mustard field.

Besides, the wind was a lot less annoying at 65 mph than at 80 mph. Also, why push it? The poor thing’s nearly as old as I am. All of that changed when I got to the Madonna Inn.

Figuring the garishness of the Corvette could only be matched by the surreal boorishness of the Inn, I stopped to snap some photos. And since C3s look so cool with their headlights up, I figured I’d pop ‘em. Only they wouldn’t pop. It was 3:00 pm, the day before daylight savings kicks in. I had 200 miles to go, and the last 30 of those were through Saturday night LA Traffic. I was now racing the sun.

Murliee Martin had been nice enough to check the Corvette out a few weeks before I showed up, so I called him. “There’s no headlights!” I shouted. “OK,” he replied. “You need to build up vacuum pressure. Take it up to 95 mph, shift into second, and let the engine haul you down to 40 mph.”

I’ve heard a lot of bad noises come out of cars in my day, but nothing quite like this. Imagine whacking a dozen circular saw blades with a crowbar. You get the idea, kinda.

I called Murilee back. “Nothing!” I screamed. “It’s probably a fuse,” he said. “You don’t have taillights either.”

So let’s recap: At this point I’m flying through wine country traffic without turn signals, headlights or taillights in a nearly 30-year-old example of the UAW’s finest work that’s titled to some guy in central Europe. And the gas tank’s (probably) stuffed with heroin. Yeah, this was big and dumb.

[Read 400 Miles Part 2 by clicking here . ] 

You’re fighting your speeding ticket in court. Take a lawyer. Yes, I know: a good local attorney will cost more than the fine. But the whole point of fighting is winning. As I explained in the last installment, the average citizen doesn’t have a hope in Hell of winning in traffic court without a lawyer. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present my case…

A lawyer knows the “system:” the rules AND the players. The defense counsel may be the “enemy,” but he’s the devil they know. The Clerk, Judge and cop can all relax; knowing the game will be played without rancor. For example, if you were a real jerk on the side of the road, the officer will tell me about it. But he won’t get mad at you again. He knows there won’t be any personal confrontation.

[Many states allow an attorney to appear for the client without the client present. So you can out-source the problem without lost time or wages.]

As Harold Hill pronounced in the Music Man, you gotta know the territory. And the Judge IS the territory. It may be a piercing glimpse into the obvious, but they are the one who will decide your fate.

Traffic court judges will vary from an ex-SCCA racer to the “little old lady with the crochet stuff on the back deck who blocks the left lane.” (True stories.) Most Judges are successful, goal-oriented people with substantial life experience. Respect is the currency of the courtroom. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Well, your lawyer can, ‘cause that’s what he does for a living.

A good local attorney will know many things you don’t– like which Judge or Prosecutor may be more sympathetic to your case. (And yes, a case can be “steered” towards a particular judge.) Or when the cop who wrote your ticket is off for their annual, month-long training. Most importantly, a lawyer knows what you are up against.

Most courts treat 70mph+ tickets as tax tickets, 80mph+ as “hey there boy,” and 90mph+ as “you are a road hazard, boy.” Triple digits earn you special treatment in every Court I attend. I have one Judge who will suspend your license for six months and impose a maximum fine.

A good traffic attorney will know what can be done with your offense. Most people hear from friends and relatives that your ticket will either “turn into a parking ticket” or “they will crucify you,” with little in between. When all the smoke settles, the short answer is that an attorney will get you the best deal in the House. It’s kind of like taking a big kid to a schoolyard fight– the fight will probably never happen and if it does, you won’t get hammered. Or hammered as badly.

If you retain an attorney specifically to go to trial, he or she will listen closely to your case. The attorney will know what a “direct case” sounds like. He will know if the officer missed something or lacks written proof. Technicalities R Us.

After the officer is done testifying, the attorney will cross examine the cop. If the attorney is prepared, experienced and knowledgeable, the process can take quite some time.

[If you think about it, five attorneys in a courtroom of 100 scheduled cases could take up an awful lot of time. In light of this fact, attorneys receive more consideration in ticket reductions. Courts are aware that retaining counsel costs money (and pretty much know who charges what in a given area). They respect that, though not officially.]

Your case depends almost entirely on this cross-examination. If the officer testifies perfectly, chances are the Judge (usually no jury) will sustain the charge. And you may be left wondering why you bothered hiring a lawyer in the first place. BUT…

Most cops do not enjoy this part of the job– for good reason. They know the stakes as much as you do. And they don’t like admitting (revealing?) their own incompetence. But police officers are not lawyers.

While they MAY know the exact legal requirements for a valid speeding ticket, they may not. No disrespect to the police, but given the huge number of tickets they write, they probably forgot something somewhere along the line. An experienced attorney has a far greater chance of making hay than a pro se litigant. An attorney will know what the police supposed to say, and when they miss it.

Again, this is where you win or lose. And if you’re going to fight, give yourself a fighting chance. Hire a lawyer. Fight the system yourself and you’ll be outmatched and outmaneuvered.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.  

OK, you got a speeding ticket. You didn’t ignore it (right answer). You didn’t pay it and take the hit to you insurance premium (also the right answer). You decided to go to court. If you were offered lowered points and fine by the court, you turned it down (potentially the wrong answer). In the penultimate part of our guide, I’m going to show you how a speeder who defends himself has a fool for a client.

The officer who wrote you up will state his name and be sworn in. The policeman will say he was working a certain shift in a given marked/unmarked patrol car. The car was equipped with a fully-functional [insert gadget name here] designed to time vehicular speed. At 10 am on Rt. 66 he saw a purple Porsche on a two-lane road, with a yellow divider. He visually estimated the speed to be 100 mph, plus or minus X mph.

[NB: a police officer’s visual speed estimate is legally admissible evidence. In The Empire State, the cop’s guesstimate/word is sufficient to uphold conviction. Most courts want a gadget reading for confirmation, purely as a practical matter.]

The officer will tell the court that he activated his speed timing device, which gave him a reading of 97 mph. Without losing sight of the vehicle, he then pulled out and pursued the perp (you). He pulled the car over at a certain location. He identified the driver by his State Photo ID. The officer will then relay whatever you said during the stop (the “do you know why I stopped you” question).

He will then state the location of the signs posting the legal speed limit, unless you have violated a state maximum (55mph in my New York patch). He will state his training, and reveal when it was last refreshed.

The cop will also tell the court how he set up his radar or laser, or produce a certificate of calibration for a speedometer (if paced). He’ll testify about tuning forks (radar) or internal self-tests (laser). Then, testifying that he was “satisfied that device X was performing according to manufacturers’ specifications,” he will close his case.

And now, it’s time for your cross-examination.

Most pro se defendants don’t channel Perry Mason, or even Denny Crane from Boston Legal. Instead, they launch into their “story:” a narrative account interspersed with “radar/laser sucks” information gleaned from the internet. When the Judge corrects them– “questions only, please,” they’re left feeling frustrated, flapping on the deck like a dying cod.

After a few easily parried questions to the cop– “no sir, there were no other cars in my radar” and “yes, you were the only purple Porsche on the road”– they’re sunk. 

Some defendants bring anti-radar/laser articles or papers to support their contention that the cop’s equipment and/or observations were inherently unreliable. These pieces of paper are routinely denied as not conforming to the “rules of evidence” (a full law school course), leaving the defendant flustered in their inability to land one of his or her cross examination “punches.”

In fact, the cop need only testify to the “direct case.” They will not give you the obvious leads you need to do a “wrong car” or “improperly setup radar” theory like you read on the internet. If the cop holds to the Direct Radar Case, for most straight speed cases, the result will be conviction. In New York City, for example, the Direct Radar Case is literally a “cookie cutter” dissertation which may or may not resemble your traffic stop.

The motorist is then convicted of the offense. I repeat, in the vast majority of speeding cases, motorists who defends themselves in court are convicted as a matter of course. It doesn’t matter how smart of savvy you are. You’re toast. Next case…

Many defendants feel extremely aggrieved by the process, and offended by the result. Unable to tell their side of the story, they conclude that the Judge was rude, insensitive and/or arrogant– even though the Judge was going by the Law, following the rules of evidence.

The motorist then pays the Clerk, complains to the Clerk about the Judge (usually her boss), and goes forth fuming– especially if he or she refused to plead to the “deal” offered two hours ago.

In the next and final installment of this series, I will make my case that anyone who wishes to fight a speeding ticket should hire a local attorney with a good track record and relevant experience. Yes, I know what you’re thinking: he would say that, wouldn’t he? If you choose to ignore a writer who’s seen literally thousands of speeding cases, that’s your prerogative.

But for now, my advice to [alleged] speeders is simple. Fight the ticket in every case. Take whatever deal you can get and/or hire an attorney. Period.

So, you got a speeding ticket. After the police officer leaves, there you are, with an official document in hand. You are unhappy. Your basic fight or flight or freeze response has you in its grip. You feel guilty, angry, shocked, insulted, humiliated, outraged or some combination thereof. Your heart rate is elevated; you’re stressing about money or points or the wife or the boss or just about everything. What happens next is up to you…

Secure in the knowledge that they haven’t had a ticket in ten years, some drivers figure they won’t get another ticket in another ten years. They pay the fine promptly and forget it. These folks are unhappy when the insurance bill, Abuser Fee, or Driver Responsibility Assessment comes in– at which point it’s usually too late to do a damn thing about it.

By the same token, some drivers simply ignore the ticket. They are even less happy when the suspension notice comes, or worse, when they’re pulled over again and [perhaps] taken to jail for “failed to answer ticket.” 

Some drivers talk to a few friends, troll the internet and discuss it (or NOT) with their significant other and decide to contest the ticket. They arm themselves with a smattering of speed detection device theory, a few legal buzzwords and maybe some information (often valid in some other jurisdiction). Delighted with the “fresh knowledge” that radar and laser guns are far from infallible, and that other speeders fought the law and the law lost, they head off to court.

[As a lawyer specializing in motoring offenses, my office motto is “never take your legal advice from real estate agents, police officers or the internet”-- present editorial excluded, of course. If you actually want to win your case, a local attorney with relevant experience is worth every penny.]

Some jurisdictions allow motorists to “call ahead” for a court date. Do not discuss the ticket with the Court Clerk. The Clerk’s heard every story in the history of the world ever. Beyond verification of your mailing address and scheduling your court date, he/she is not interested, and he/she has no authority to “make it go away” (the secret hope of every defendant in the world). Rudeness to a clerk will ensure that you get no consideration in scheduling preferences, should such a thing be available. 

Speeding and other motoring offenses are “processed” in many different ways around the country. In many cases, the alleged perpetrator goes to court, waits forever, pleads not guilty, and then waits another eternity for a trial date. The potential “deal” that you can make on a ticket also varies widely. Just because your buddy got a “parking ticket” reduction a few years ago in another town is meaningless to the Judge in YOUR town.

Some places, notably New York City Traffic Violations Bureau, refuse to deal at all. To put it kindly, they are relentlessly pro-prosecution. Other jurisdictions will favor the motorist, or at least give them a fair shake. As any good attorney will tell you, Judges also vary widely, from by-the-book/throw the book at you to “lenient.” Traffic court is no exception.

When Court day arrives, dress decently and leave your attitude at home. The correct mindset: assertive, not aggressive. You are now on government (a.k.a. geologic) time, so bring a book. Cell phones, iPods and Blackberries are frowned upon in most courtrooms; a ringing cell phone during a session can punt you to the last case of the day.  One of the basic rules of Civil Service: “We are here all day… YOU can be too!” Being polite and courteous counts in this arena.

Come to Court, sign in and wait. You may be called to discuss your case with the Prosecutor or Police officer who wrote you up. They may make you an offer (that you can refuse). If you’ve studied your state’s point system, you’ll have an idea what’s at stake.

The Judge and Prosecutor are not there to give you legal advice; don’t expect it and don't be disappointed if you don’t get it. In most places where negotiation is allowed, you’ll be offered something. I find that an attorney will normally be able to secure “the best deal in the house.” If you're a “frequent flier” or just don’t feel confident playing this game, again, a lawyer is a wise investment. 

At the time of the offer, do NOT launch into your carefully rehearsed and novel (to you) arguments as to why the ticket was in error/illegal. The police officer or Prosecutor in front of you has but one answer to any such suggestion: “I’ll mark you for trial at the end of the calendar.”

Next up, next Thursday: your day in court.

If there’s anything that makes you swear faster than passing a cop aiming a radar/laser gun at your car, it’s seeing a cop car looming in your rear view mirror. Either way, you’re busted. You’re about to play your part in a carefully scripted interchange with tax-funded law enforcement. How you play your role will have a big impact on what happens next. 

First and foremost, don’t act coy. If the blue lights are flashing on your behalf, put on your hazard lights immediately and pull over. You can turn a simple traffic violation into a misdemeanor easily by missing this one. Remember that the officer has one thought as he yanks your chain: he doesn’t want to get hurt. So pull over somewhere safe, preferably off the main road, but always into a well-lit, open space. 

When Officer Krupke pulls you over, he doesn’t know if you’re an honest citizen with a heavy foot or a third strike felon with a weapon. So do not reach into your glove box or your coat pocket for your license and registration before the policeman approaches. Lower your window, put both hands on the steering wheel, relax your shoulders and wait.

In most cases, the officer will call in your plate and his location before he leaves the car. He’ll watch you and your passengers (repeatedly) for “furtive movements.” The cop will approach you over your left shoulder. It’s tactical: he/she can see almost everything you do and can respond quickly if you're stupid/drugged enough to “try something." By the same psychological token, the bright lights are supposed to scare you and illuminate the inside of your car.

When the cop approaches, let him speak first. Most times, he’ll ask for your license and registration. Sometimes, he’ll ask you a direct question, to determine your state of mind and whether or not you’re drunk or drugged. If the officer asks you a simple question (“Do you know how fast you were going?”), provide him or her with a simple answer (“No, I’m sorry, I don’t”). Keep your voice level and your tone respectful.

After the initial interchange, you can proffer an excuse, if you so choose.  Don't schmooze; friendliness counts for nothing here. All the cop wants is his safety and your respect. So be direct, courteous and passive. Make your excuse simple (e.g. “I’m late to pick-up my kid from school”) and always start with an apology. Yes, an apology. But do not admit guilt. Just “I’m sorry.” Not, “I’m sorry I was speeding.” It’s a fine line. Don’t cross it.

Many times, perhaps even most times, the officer simply doesn’t want to hear your story. In some cases, the cop might even walk off while you’re in mid-sentence. Don’t lose your cool. These guys have heard it all before. They may have other things they want to do besides listen to you lie, prevaricate or explain your criminal behavior. 

Once the officer gets your papers, the officer will usually go back to the safety of his car (roadsides are dangerous for all) and run your specifics. He will check out your car from time to time, looking for those “furtive movements.” After the policeman establishes that your license and registration are valid, and that you and your vehicle aren’t wanted for any reason, he or she will cite you for your offense(s). 

If you were polite, sometimes there will be a small “roadside reduction” or even a warning instead of a ticket. If you were rude, there will be no mercy. If you were very rude, then there may be several citations. I can often tell by the set of tickets presented how my client acted towards the police officer on the roadside. In States like Virginia, where a ticket (and various inventive surcharges) can be mortgage money expensive, you’ll want any “discretion” the cop has used in your favor.

When the officer gives you the ticket (s), he or she will briefly engage you in conversation. If the officer gives you a lecture, or asks you a series of questions intended to rub your nose in your offense, just grin and bear it. Under no circumstances should you ever argue with the police. If the ticket’s written, the deal’s gone down. If you’ve been hard done by, you’ll get your day in court (and do NOT use that as a threat of any kind).

For most normal traffic stops, the police officer has made notes on the back of the ticket as to the particulars of the stop, and your attitude. He will have forgotten about you (usually) as soon as he’s back on the pavement at patrol speeds. Which leads us to the next part of our story… the Courthouse.

You are, of course, pleading Not Guilty.

Ever since the Model T hit the silver screen, evading the long arm of the law has been a cinematic theme. From the General Lee outrunning Boss Hogg, to Smokey being outwitted by Burt Reynolds' mustache, the public imagination has always associated fast cars with police pursuit. While the majority of motorists would never dream of trying to outrun the long arm of the law, soon, they won't have to. It'll be resting on their shoulder. Consider OnStar…  

OnStar is a telemetry system providing a central data bank with real-time data on virtually every system in your car, including GPS. OnStar's computer knows where you were, when you were there, and how fast you went. It knows if and when you applied the brakes, if and when the air bags deployed, and what speed you were going at the time. It knows if and when your car was serviced.

OnStar operators can determine if you have a passenger in the front seat (airbag detection). All interactions with OnStar's operators are automatically recorded (hence the commercials). By the same token, under certain conditions, OnStar can switch on your GM car's microphone remotely and record any and all sounds within the vehicle (i.e. conversations). But wait, there's more…  

As of 2009, customers who upgrade to OnStar's "Safe & Sound" plan automatically receive the "Stolen Vehicle Slowdown" service. (Yes, it's an "opt out" deal.) If the OnStar-equipped vehicle is reported stolen and law enforcement has "established a clear line of sight of the stolen vehicle," the police may ask OnStar to slow it down remotely.  

Many customers find OnStar immensely reassuring; their guardian e-angel. No question: OnStar has saved lives and provided its customers with valuable services. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in business. But what if…

The police are investigating a crime. They ask OnStar where your car was on a certain date and time, to corroborate an alibi. Or what if you're in a crash and the other guy's attorney would like to know how fast you were driving when you ran the red light? Would OnStar surrender the information? "OnStar is required to locate the car to comply with legal requirements, including valid court orders showing probable cause in criminal investigations." And OnStar may use gathered information to "protect the rights, property, or safety of you or others."

Imagine the following scenario. The FBI shows up at OnStar master command and tells them your car's been stolen by a terrorist, who may be using it to commit a crime at this very moment. Contacting the owner is out of the question; the owner may also be a terrorist. What does OnStar do? They cooperate with the FBI and give them everything they've got on your car. No warrant needed and no notification to you. Hell, you may not even have the service enabled. 

In other words, you not only have to trust OnStar to protect your privacy, you have to trust the police not to ask the questions in the first place.

The Constitution of the United States protects us from the heavy hand of government. However, when it comes to protection from private entities, it does little. Into this void, multiple privacy laws have entered, creating a farrago of local, state, and federal laws which provide limited and haphazard protection to citizens.  Whatever privacy protection these laws provide are usually nullified when companies violate them in "good faith" (e.g. while assisting the authorities.)

So who is going to stop the government from monitoring your car? The Bill of Rights protects you from an unreasonable search and seizure; the government can not take what belongs to you without a warrant. OnStar can owns the information they collect about your car. In short, there is nothing to stop the police or OnStar from using the information you paid for against you.

And the next step is even more insidious.  Imagine GPS speed limiters which only allow you to go the speed limit based upon a map uploaded into your car's navigation system. Now Sammy Hagar will only be driving 55 no matter how hard he stomps on the go pedal. This is the ultimate assault on pistonheads.  The only place where driving will be fun will be on the track– if OnStar and/or the car's manufacturer (e.g. the Japanese GT-R) let you.

There's only one sensible response to this trend: boycott vehicles equipped with OnStar, even if you don't sign up for the service. (Remember: it can be remotely enabled.) If customers actively avoid vehicles that spy on them, manufacturers will have to stop installing the monitoring software and hardware. And law enforcement agencies and prosecutors will have to get their information and apprehend criminals the old-fashioned way: through legally-sanctioned police work. In short, I don't buy OnStar, and neither should you.