From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Ticket for running stop sign
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:29:40 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In article <1ae4raINN4qf@lasso.crhc.uiuc.edu> peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:
>
>I got a ticket for running a stop sign on a gentle right turn from
>one deserted road to another deserted road at 4am.  (For those in
>the Champaign area, it was in Mahommet from southbound 47 onto 150.)
>
>The main point seems to boil down to this:  is it a waste of my time
>to go to court if I cannot assure the court that I did in fact stop?

IMO, yes.

>Will the judge say, regardless, "She says you ran the stop sign.  You
>say you don't know whether you did.  I have to find you guilty."

Most definitely yes. It's your word against the cop's. Even if you say
"I *know* I came to a complete stop," you'd lose without some additional
evidence to back up your claim.

>Can any of the following be used as grounds for anything?
>
>(1) The stop bars (indicated by ...) on the right turn are at such a
>    point that it is _impossible_ to see traffic from the left.  A
>    "legal" stop would be absolutely worthless.  However, if one slows
>    as she approaches 150, her car is directed virtually west and her
>    visibility is perfect.  A stop here when no cars are coming is
>    (it's the only word that comes to mind) unnatural.

This will get you absolutely nowhere. The appropriate behavior would be
to come to a complete stop at the marked stop line, THEN roll forward
slowly to a position where you can clearly see the cross traffic,
proceeding only when safe to do so. This is what the judge is going to
tell you in his post-decision lecture. ;-)

>    I sat for a while at this intersection (after taking photos of
>    it), and I saw only 1 car out of many actually stop when there
>    were no cars approaching from the left.  All the rest treated this
>    curvy turn as a yield.  And all those who met traffic stopped
>    safely at the end of the curve, well past the stop bar.

Lazy stops are true for just about any intersection in the universe.
However, the "but judge, EVERYBODY does it!" argument will get you
nowhere, since trying such a lame excuse will probably annoy the
judge. Believe me, he's heard them ALL before, and he hears the lame
ones quite often; he's quite sick and tired of hearing them. My advice:
don't use them. If you don't have a well thought out and valid excuse,
don't say anything at all. Bear in mind that the amount of annoyance the
judge feels can adversely affect the actual amount of your fine.

>(2) It was 4 in the blessed am, and not a car on the road.

Judge: "The law is the same no matter the time of day or how busy the
road is."

>(3) The officer was apologetic, saying, "It's policy in Mahommet to
>    give tickets for running stop signs."  She may have said this
>    to stave off argument, or she may have really felt sorry for
>    ticketing me for this alleged infraction.
>
>Any hope?

Nope!

>Also, I have a New Mexico license.

Judge Borg: "Driver's License is irrelevant." ;-)

>(This infraction occured in
>Illinois.)  The back of the ticket says the Sec. of State who issued
>my license will be notified.  Does anyone know if this is the truth
>or just an idle claim?  As most will agree, I don't mind the $50:
>I mind the record.

It's a moving violation; if they do report to NM, your insurance rates
will probably go up. For that reason, you might want to go to court and
pray the cop doesn't show and that your case is thrown out. Rumor has
it, however, that if you pay the ticket by mail, sometimes the state
will "forget" to report the violation to your home state. That's
assuming IL and NM have a reciprocal reporting agreement in the first
place. In any case, I wouldn't go into the courtroom expecting to win on
the "merits" of your testimony. ;-) Also be aware that your "fine" will
probably be higher if you go to court, since you will have to pay court
costs on top of whatever fine the judge gives you.