Section 2 of 4 - Prev - Next
All sections - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4

   California's.  Second, the smog checkers recognize that it's a 49-state car
   and test it to the appropriate standard.  Third, any well-maintained car
   should have no problem passing even the stiffer California standards.  A
   modern catalytic converter-equipped car should be putting out air that's
   almost as clean as it's taking in.

   It's hard to generalize for older vehicles, such as those without catalytic
   converters.  The 49-state and CA emissions standards were quite different
   way back when, and it's not unusual to be required to retrofit such items as
   closed PCV systems and air pumps.

   You don't have to bring a 49-state car up to CA tailpipe standards.  The
   stated purpose of the smog impact fee ($300) law is to fund checking up to
   see if this was once a California car which was taken out of state and is
   now being brought back in as a 49-state car not in compliance with CA's
   standards.  Many cars are "50-state cars", and have an emissions sticker
   which claims that they meet the CA emissions standards, even if bought in
   Maine.  These cars are not subject to the $300 fee.

   What you really do have to watch out for is removed smog control parts which
   were perhaps legal, or quasi-legal to remove some places so long as the
   emissions met local standards.  In CA (and in many other states as well) the
   smog test includes a visual equipment check:  certain emissions-control
   components must be installed and functional, regardless of the outcome of
   the tailpipe test.  This is because the tailpipe test is under very
   restricted conditions (at idle and at one steady-state speed with no load)
   and doesn't check all of the emissions species (just unburned hydrocarbons
   and carbon monoxide).  In contrast, the vehicle manufacturer had to
   demonstrate compliance over a much more representative driving cycle, had to
   meet standards for oxides of nitrogen and evaporative emissions, and had to
   meet 50K or 100K mile durability requirements.  More than one out-of-state
   vehicle has met the recommendation "take it to Nevada and sell it" when the
   cost of replacing such parts exceeded the value of the car.



Laws:  vehicle equipment

15.Is window tinting legal? What about pull-down blinds and window stickers?

   from john@storcon.com (John Hunley) on 14 Dec and 15 Dec 1992:

   The applicable paragraph in the CVC is 26708.  It's too long to quote here
   in full, but basically what it says (disclaimer: this is my own personal
   interpretation, I'm not a lawyer, don't come running to me if you get
   nailed) is that you may not operate with "any object or material placed,
   displayed, installed, affixed, or applied upon the windshield or side or
   rear windows."  Side windows to the rear of the driver are exempted
   (26708b4), as is the rear window IF you have mirrors on both left- and
   right-hand sides (26708b8).  Tinted safety glass is permitted by 26708.5b.
   Therefore, the basic distinction is whether you have tinted glass or tinting
   that is stuck onto the glass.  There's no mention of "factory" vs. "third
   party."  A third-party tint job would be legal if it was done by replacing
   the windshield and front windows with tinted safety glass, rather than by
   sticking or painting something onto the existing glass.

   An interesting side note is that 26708a3 specifically includes snow and ice
   as an obstruction covered under 26708.  So you can get a ticket for 26708
   for having snow or ice on your windshield or front windows, as well as
   stick-on tinting.  Same violation.

   The pull-down blinds are permitted ONLY if the driver or front passenger has
   a signed document from a physician or optometrist (CVC 26708b10) stating
   that they are required due to a medical or visual condition.  CVC 26708b3
   allows "signs, stickers, or other materials which are displayed in a 7-inch
   square in the lower corner of the windshield ... [or] ... rear window
   farthest removed from the driver, or ... in a 5-inch square in the lower
   corner of the windshield nearest the driver."

   Also exempted are such things as rearview mirrors, rear window wiper
   hardware, rear trunk lid handles and hinges, destination signs on busses,
   magnifying or wide-angle lenses on the passenger side window of a truck, and
   of course the standard equipment sun visors.


16.Do I need chains in the mountains if I have snow tires?  If so, what kind?

   from ajh@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Alan Hu) on 10 dec 1992:

   According to my memory according to a pamphlet put out by CalTrans a
   few years ago, chain requirements come in three varieties:
	1.  Chains required.  Four-wheel drive or snow tires OK.
	2.  Chains required.  Four-wheel drive with snow tires OK.
	3.  Chains required on all vehicles, including four-wheel drive.
   Usually you'll see #2, although I've seen #1 before.  The pamphlet
   said they'll usually close the road instead of doing a #3.  Tires
   marked M/S or M+S qualify as snow tires [CVC 27459].  Chains must be
   installed on at least two drive wheels [CVC 27459].  Four wheel
   drive vehicles must still carry chains.

   The chain requirements used to surprise my non-CA friends.  If you
   haven't seen them enforced yet:
	You'll see the Chains Required sign.  Lots of people will be
	pulled off the side of the road putting on chains.  Various
	people wander from car to car offering to put your chains on
	for a fee (but they're not allowed to sell chains).  Farther
	down the road, a checkpoint checks EVERY car that tries to continue.
	If you don't meet the chain requirement, they turn you back.
   In short, if you're driving in the Sierra, they're very good to have.
   Also, there's a toll-free CalTrans road condition number [see the
   phone numbers question in this FAQ].

   from dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner) on 9 dec 1992:

   Most people could indeed drive the passes when snow covered without
   chains, IF the road were more or less clear of other cars.  But in
   stop-n-go driving, common in the Sierra during a snow storm, required
   chains are what prevents total chaos.

   -- And, if so, what would y'all recommend?

   For infrequent usage, such as having the bad luck to hit snow on a
   Sierra pass during a drought, consider the cable type.  For frequent
   usage, or maximum effect, use the real thing.

   Watch out for oversized tires, or even maximally sized tires on front
   wheel drive.  The chains can extend wide enough to hit other front-end
   components.  Cables mitigate this problem.



Laws:  enforcement (see also "Radar and speed trap" section)

17.Can a local cop cite you for speeding on an Interstate?

   Yes.  For felonies and public offenses (which include infractions and
   misdemeanors) in the presence of the officer, or actions that could cause
   great bodily harm or death, the sworn POST (Peace Officers Standard
   Training) certified officer is empowered in the entire state [see Penal
   Code 830, 832, 1523].  Furthermore, the authority of sheriffs, police
   officers, etc., extends to any place in the state as to any public offense
   committed (or believed to have been committed) within the political
   subdivision which employs him or her [Penal Code 830.1].


18.Can a CHP officer write a ticket for an offense not committed on a freeway?

   Yes [Penal Code 830.2(a)].


19.What's the difference between the CA Highway Patrol and the CA State Police?

   The primary duty of CHP officers is enforcement of the vehicle code [Penal
   Code 830.2(a)].  The primary duty of CSP officers is to "provide police
   services for the protection of state officers, and the protection of state
   properties and occupants thereof" [Penal Code 830.2(b)].



Radar and speed traps

20.What are some locations of speed and carpool lane enforcement traps?

entry format:  zone, city or area, road, posted speed, submitter

zones:

Bay area
Central Valley
LA metro
N CA rural
S CA rural
San Diego metro

Certain fields omitted where not applicable.  A ? indicates missing
data.  Direction before the road indicates submitter specified that
direction of travel as the speed trap.

If you would like to add to or correct the speed traps list, please
send entries in the format you see here.  Please tell me
if you wish to remain anonymous.  If you don't tell me, I will list
you as a submitter.  This list was originally compiled by stevea@locus.com.

Bay Area, Atherton, Middlefield Rd, 25, jazzman
Bay Area, Berkeley, Adeline Ave., 25 + Basic Speed Law voided, georgew
Bay Area, Palo Alto, San Antonio Rd. @ 101, 35, howardp
Bay Area, Campbell, Hamilton Ave. E. of Saratoga Ave, 35, joe
Bay Area, Campbell, Leigh Ave. S. of Hamilton Ave, 35, joe
Bay Area, Campbell, Hwy 85 (CHP uses radar), 65, georgewu
Bay Area, Cor?elia, I-80 near where it meets I-680, 65, muir
Bay Area, Cupertino, Hwy 85 (CHP uses radar), 65, georgewu
Bay Area, Fremont, Grimmer Blvd near Blacow Rd--no speed limit sign, 35, marcb
Bay Area, Fremont, Mission Blvd and Nursery Ave, 50, marcb
Bay Area, Fremont, Paseo Padre near Covington Dr, 30, marcb
Bay Area, Fremont, Paseo Padre Pkwy near Darwin Dr, 30, marcb
Bay Area, Fremont, 5 Corners area (Fremont/Washington/Union etc.), 25/35, marcb
Bay Area, Los Altos, Foothill Expr @ Loyola fire house, 45, georgewu
Bay Area, Los Altos Hills, Foothill Expr north of Edith, 45, georgewu
Bay Area, Los Altos Hills, I-280 S. at Magdelena Rd (CHP hides off of freeway),
   65, jazzman
Bay Area, Livermore, Alden Lane, 25, poffen
Bay Area, Livermore, 1st Street, 25, poffen
Bay Area, Los Gatos, N Hwy 17 Summit Rd to Hwy 9, 50, marcb
Bay Area, Milpitas, Barber Ln., south of firehouse, 35, gmandel
Bay Area, Milpitas, McCarthy Blvd. btw. 237 & Tasman, 35, gmandel
Bay Area, Milpitas, Milpitas Blvd S of Jacklin Rd, ??, owen
Bay Area, Mtn View, Easy St access ramp from Central Expwy to CA 85, 25, Anon.
Bay Area, Mtn View, Old Middlefield Rd., after US 101 N. offramp, 35, chucko
Bay Area, Mtn View, Rengstorff and Montecito, 35, chucko
Bay Area, Mtn View, US 101 north at CA 85, 65 (CHP hides under bridge), Anon.
Bay Area, Mtn View, US 101 north of Moffett Field/Castro overpass,
   65 (CHP hides way off road), jet
Bay Area, Mtn View, Hwy 85 S. of El Camino (CHP uses radar), 65, georgewu
Bay Area, Oakland, Mandela Pkwy (Cypress Blvd), 35, Anon.
Bay Area, Oyster Point, US 101 between SF Airport & Candlestick, 65, lstowell
Bay Area, Palo Alto, N I-280 from vista pts. near Alpine Rd., 65 tsu
Bay Area, Palo Alto or M. View?, San Antonio Rd by Sun PAL-1 building, 35, owen
Bay Area, Palo Alto, Alma, 25/35 or 30?, owen
Bay Area, Palo Alto, Page Mill Rd, 35, Anon.
Bay Area, Pinole, I-80, 65, owen
Bay Area, Redwood City, I-280 @ Farm Hill Road exit ramp, 30?, Anon.
Bay Area, San Carlos/Belmont/San Mateo, I-280 @ Hwy 92, 65, lstowell
Bay Area, San Francisco, E Bosworth and Lippard Sts, stop sign, tsu
Bay Area, San Francisco, 18th and Danver Sts, stop sign, tsu
Bay Area, San Francisco, SE Portola Dr. nr Glenview, 35 (25 during school), tsu
Bay Area, San Jose, I-880 @ US 101 both directions, 65, Anon.
Bay Area, San Jose, Montague railroad and 101 overpasses, 45, georgew
Bay Area, Santa Clara, E Montague @ Lafayette, 45, woolsey
Bay Area, Santa Clara, Lawrence Expressway, 50, Anon.
Bay Area, Santa Clara, San Tomas Expressway, 45, Anon.
Bay Area, Santa Clara, San Tomas Expressway, 45, Anon.
Bay Area, Saratoga, Saratoga Ave. @ Hwy 85, 35, gmandel
Bay Area, Saratoga, Hwy 85 (CHP uses radar), 65, georgewu
Bay Area, Sausalito, US 101 over Waldo Grade, 55, Anon.
Bay Area, Sunnyvale, Central Expressway--recessed portion, 50, dhepner
Bay Area, Sunnyvale, Lawrence Stn Rd btw Elko & Old Mtn Vw-Alviso, 25, jazzman
Bay Area, Sunnyvale, Wolfe Road between Evelyn and I-280, 35, dhepner
Bay Area, Vallejo, I-80 just NE of Vallejo at top of hill, 65, muir
Central Valley, Auburn area, I-80 between Auburn & Alta, 55, muir
Central Valley, Bakersfield, I-5 near Bakersfield, 65, lstowell
Central Valley, Davis, I-80 @ Davis I-80 business loop, 65, muir
Central Valley, Los Banos area, I-5 near CA 152, 65, lstowell
Central Valley, Sacramento, I-80 thru Davis-Sacramento moderately bad, 65, muir
LA metro, Corona, CA 91, 55, mcgillis
LA metro, Grapevine area, I-5, 55, lstowell
LA metro, Palms/West LA, Venice @ Kelton (btw Sepulveda & Overland), 40, cjones
LA metro, W of LAX, Vista Del Mar--Rosecrans to Culver Blvd, 35/40/45, stevea
N CA Rural, , I-80 between Sacramento & Tahoe, 55, lstowell
N CA rural, El Dorado Co., US 50 from Placerville to Sac. Co. line, 55, Anon.
S CA Rural, Solvang, US 101, 55, lstowell
S CA Rural, King City, US 101 in King City, 55, raveling
S CA Rural, San Ardo, US 101 N. near Los Lobos Rd., 55, jmwd
S CA Rural, San Luis Obispo (?), Hwy 1 near San Bernardo Creek Rd., 55, jmwd

CARPOOL LANE ENFORCEMENT

Bay area, Santa Clara Co, I-280 from Guadalupe Pwky to Foothill Expwy, , marcb
Bay area, Menlo Park, 101-S btwn Marsh & Willow @ Rlrd. Overpass, , gary.cook
Bay area, San Jose/Milpitas, Hwy 237 near Hwy 880, , owen & marcb
Bay Area, San Jose - Montague Expressway between Zanker and River Oaks/Plumeria
   sometimes / Zanker and Trimble at others, , jazzman

Submitters:

chucko@rahut.net
cjones@gse.ucla.edu
dhepner@hpcuhc.cup.hp.com
gary.cook@corp.sun.com
gmandel@megatest.com
georgewu@netcom.com
howardp@mayfield.hp.com
jazzman@claris.com
jet@nas.nasa.gov
jmwd@pge.com
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com
owen@netcom.com
marcb@ecst.csuchico.edu
mcgillis@lefty.sdd.trw.com
muir@csi.com
poffen@San-Jose.ate.slb.com
raveling@unify.com
stevea@locus.com
woolsey@folderol.uucp


21.Are radar detectors illegal in CA, or just not popular for some reason?

   from chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry) on 30 Jul 92:

   They're perfectly legal.  I think it's a combination of factors that
   keeps their popularity down.

   First, there seems to be a mistaken impression that the CHP is not
   permitted to use radar.  This is false; although for years the
   Legislature shot down funding for radar equipment, local jurisdictions
   have always been free to provide gear to the CHP for local trouble
   spots, and I believe the CHP now has funding to buy a limited number
   of radar units of their own.  And remember that local police and
   sheriff's deputies have never been reluctant to use radar.

   Second is the fact that radar is essentially useless in heavy freeway
   traffic, because there's no way to pinpoint one violator.  And at rush
   hour, much of this traffic doesn't ever see the speed limit anyway.

   Third, I just don't think Californians have as much of an adversarial
   relationship with police as residents of other states do.  The CHP by
   and large plays fair, and as a result most drivers here seem to feel
   they deserved a ticket if they got caught.

   I carry a radar detector and make frequent use of it, especially in
   known radar speed traps (e.g. most of Palo Alto especially Alma St.
   and Charleston, highway 17 through the mountains).  I highly recommend
   a good radar detector to anyone who drives, whether your foot is made
   of lead or feathers, since most urban speed limits in California are
   set well below the 85th percentile speed and are thus de facto speed
   traps.

   from georgewu@netcom.com (George Wu) on 5 Nov 96:

   CHP has used radar for years on Highway 17.  They've recently added
   it to Highway 85 south of Mountain View due to a spate of recent head
   on collisions across the median strip.



Traffic court, traffic school, and DMV

22.Am I entitled to a jury trial for my traffic ticket?  Can I have counsel
   appointed at public expense?  Can I be sent to prison if found guilty?

   No, no, and no [Penal Code 19c].  This only applies to infractions, of
   course.  You get the book thrown at you, and all resulting rights and
   privileges, for misdemeanors and felonies whether or not committed behind
   the wheel.


23.Why can't I both argue my case in court and use traffic school to keep
   the points off my license if I lose?

   from J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM (Tim Irvin) on 7 Apr 93:

   The only reason traffic school is even given as an option is to ease the
   burden on the courts.  If you could get traffic school by taking the case to
   court, the county would have no incentive to even offer it as an option.  It
   sucks, but they would eliminate the traffic school option before they would
   allow "ticket fighters" to go there, too.

   from cjkuo@symantec.com (Jimmy Kuo) on 26 Mar 1993:

   When convicted, you are at the mercy of the court, within legal guidelines.
   You may ask to go to traffic school and it may still be granted.  But it is
   no longer a choice to be made by you rather it is now a choice the judge is
   to make.

   from gerhard@mikas.llnl.gov (Michael Gerhard) on 7 Apr 93:

   A friend of mine got a speeding ticket in Fremont.  He tried to fight it (he
   WAS speeding) and after the officer testified, my friend took the stand and
   realized he wasn't going to win.  Instead of providing a defense, he asked
   the judge if he could change his plea to guilty and take traffic school.
   The judge thought it a bit odd, asked the officer if he had any objections,
   and the allowed my friend to take traffic school.

   It may not be a legislated action that if you fight then no traffic school.
   In my friends case, it was the discretion of the judge.

   from dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) on 7 Apr 93:

   Note that it's possible to end up having plead guilty with traffic school as
   your sentence and get the points on your record and everything.  This is
   _different_ from when you sign up for traffic school before the arraignment,
   trial, or anything and don't get the points on your public record.


24.I've heard about "comedy traffic schools".  Has anyone tried one of these?

   from sidney@apple.com (Sidney Markowitz) on 10 Jun 1993:

   I had such a good time with Improv, The Comedy Club Presents Traffic School
   last weekend, that I wanted to recommend it to the net.  The instructor was
   Steve Verret.  He claims to have been the most requested traffic school
   instructor in California five years in a row, and he was good enough that I
   can easily believe that.  Besides being a lot of fun and two dollars cheaper
   than any other school I called ($30 vs $32), he handed out to every student
   a free pass for two to Improv Comedy Club in San Francisco.

   The state lets you satisfy the traffic school requirement at any licensed
   traffic school in the state, though some counties only recognize schools on
   lists that they publish.  Improv, The Comedy Club Presents Traffic School
   has classes in several counties.  I don't know which locations Steve Verret
   teaches in addition to Santa Cruz where I took the class, but it would be
   worth asking for him.  Their number is 800-775-5233.

   Disclaimer:  I have no affiliation with Improv, The Comedy Club Presents
   Traffic School, other than as a satisfied graduate.

   from gwu@esl.com (George J Wu) on 3 Feb 1993:

   I too went to the Improv traffic school.  I went based on the experiences
   of two of my friends who said the school was "okay," not hilarious, but not
   terrible.

   I'd go a little further and say it was pretty good, as good as detention
   can get.  My instructor was Jim Coulter, and I strongly recommend him.  He
   is a little weird, but that's also the basis of his humour, so it makes for
   an enjoyable day.  Also, Jim can quote the CVC chapter and verse,
   literally.  He knows the text and section numbers by heart the way you and
   I remember our phone numbers.  The class is not only enjoyable, but Jim
   teaches you alot about driving in California and the law.

   Oh yeah, since their club up in the city closed, the traffic school now
   gives out passes to Rooster T. Feathers (at least for classes down here in
   the South Bay).


25.Do tickets dismissed by traffic school attendance appear on my DMV record?

   from jordan@MooreNet.COM (Jordan Hayes) on 29 oct 1991:

   Here's the scoop.  Note: this changed recently, and I'll note the
   differences between what's in effect now and what was before Jan 1, 1991.
   There are two versions of your DMV record, what I'll call the private one
   and the public one.  The private one has all of your transactions, since the
   establishment of your bits in their computer.  This is a "write-only" type
   of record.  Nothing ever gets removed (except for incorrect information :-).

   The public record is the one that you can get for a fee, and the one that
   your insurance company can get.  This has things dropped off after certain
   time limits that vary with the charge (for instance, DWI events stay
   longer).  In addition, if you go to traffic school, moving violations do not
   get transferred to your "public" record, and you don't get the "points"
   involved added to your record -- get a certain number of points in a certain
   amount of time (4 in a year, 6 in 2 years, 8 in 3 years [CVC 12810.5]) and
   you can lose your license; you may have to check up on DMV to make sure that
   they received your of certificate of traffic school completion.  The right
   time to do this is *before* your insurance comes up for renewal ...

   Starting January 1, 1991, if you get another moving violation within the
   first year after going to traffic school, the *original* violation gets
   moved from your private record to your public record (so that insurance
   companies can see it), but you don't get charged points for it.  In
   addition, you are ineligible for traffic school, so you'll now have two
   convictions on your record.

   from Ed.Evans@f227.n103.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Evans) on 1 nov 1991:

   I've been told that if you go to traffic school, and if you get another
   moving violation within 18 months, then your original citation will appear
   on your DMV printout.  This information has been denied by DMV personnel.
   However, Gov. Deukmejian signed a bill to this effect before he left office.
   Before he signed the bill, the policy was for the citation to reappear if
   the violator violated within 12 months.

   Going to traffic school is an admission of guilt.  The violator's citation
   is not "forgiven" and it does not "disappear."  It is "masked."  This means
   that it is kept in an informal holding area (of a computer) forever.  To
   wit: a violation within 18 months of attending traffic school causes the
   citation to become "unmasked" and it remains unmasked until it has been
   presented to the world for its 36 month tour of DMV abstract access.  After
   36 months, all citations are masked and do not reappear, except for PD's on
   request, courts, and the National Security Agency on request.  This is
   important to know if you want to become a cop or need a top secret
   clearance.  Otherwise, it'll probably never matter, once the citation is
   masked.

   There's a lot of folk wisdom passed out by traffic violator school
   instructors.  I know, I'm one of them.

   from optilink!walsh@uunet.uu.NET (Mark Walsh) on 16 Dec 91:

   Lesson:  make sure that your traffic school paperwork gets all of the way
   through the system.  I went through the traffic school, and sent the
   paperwork in via certified mail, etc.  A few months later, I was at the DMV,
   and found out that I had a warrant out for my arrest!  My paperwork had
   fallen through the cracks.


26.Do out-of-state tickets appear on your California DMV printout, and
   can insurance companies can find this info out if they don't?

   from gordon@TASVAX.NSWSES.NAVY.MIL (Gordon C. Zaft) on 15 Nov 1991:
   Well, it happened to me!  I had two tickets from Texas and one from New
   Mexico show up on DMV record last year (they were from almost 3 years ago!
   I don't know why the delay) and my insurance went up $200!

   from rezal@leland.Stanford.EDU (Rezal Adzly Abdul Rahman) on 19 Nov 1991:
   I friend of mine got a speeding ticket in Texas, two years ago, and when he
   recently went to get a DMV printout for the insurance company, it was there!

   from wab@worf.Rational.COM (Bill Baker) on 23 Nov 1991:
   This is called "reciprocity".  Basically what it means is that if you don't
   pay an out of state ticket, the DMV of the state issuing your license agrees
   to put it on your record and charge you for it when you go to renew your
   license, the idea being that the other state will do the same for tickets
   issued to their drivers in your home state.  I've had a lot of experience
   with this.

   Most states do not have reciprocity with every other state.  Most states
   usually have reciprocity with neighbor states.  However, home states can be
   pretty lax about applying out of state penalties.  I had my Washington
   license "revoked" by California, Oregon, and North Dakota, but the Wash. DMV
   renewed my license without complaint (as long as I paid those in state
   tickets).  I also once tried to skip out on a bunch of Wash. tickets by
   applying for a new license in Oregon.  I told the clerk I'd never had a
   license, but when he ran my ID on the computer he came back with a list of
   my many outstanding Washington tickets.  Then he gave me a copy of the
   written test and told me to return it to him when I was done.  I mean, he
   *knew* I was lying but apparently that didn't bar you from getting an Oregon
   license.  Sometimes state rivalries can have weird fallout.

   You can probably find out from DMV what states California has reciprocity
   agreements with.  Nevada is almost certainly one of them.  I'm not familiar
   enough with CA DMV to know how seriously they enforce reciprocity.  However,
   whether or not your home state cares about out of state tickets, the state
   issuing the ticket never forgets.  If you get stopped in that state again,
   they will almost certainly haul you to the local hoosegow and keep you there
   until you pay the massive fine.

   Insurance companies are a much bigger menace.  They get data from
   everywhere.  It's very hard to hide tickets from them.  However, most states
   can't release a record of a ticket until the ticket is actually paid,
   because you aren't officially guilty until you've paid the ticket or had a
   "trial".  My insurance company never knew about my out of state tickets as
   long as I didn't pay them.  Of course, had I been caught a second time in
   one of those states and been "convicted" of driving on a "revoked" license
   with unpaid tickets, my insurance rating would have become terminal
   immediately.

   The bottom line is, if you're caught speeding next door, you'd better pay it
   because there's a good chance you'll get stopped again in that state, which
   would be a disaster.  If you're caught out in Podunk State (say North
   Dakota) and you don't expect to be back more than once or twice in your
   lifetime, you can take a chance on skipping out on the ticket.  Remember,
   though, that the rural states are wise to this.  They usually direct you to
   drive to the next state patrol office and pay the ticket immediately.  They
   may follow you to make sure you do.

   from optilink!walsh@uunet.uu.NET (Mark Walsh) on 16 Dec 91:
   I got screwed by the city of Berkeley early last year.  The police officer
   was very polite, and he said that the ticket was merely a fine like a
   parking ticket, and it would not go on my DMV record.  Guess what?  My
   insurance went up!  When I talked to my agent, he said that their (Farmer's)
   computers talk to many local computers, and everybody shares info with
   everybody else, and that the DMV was probably the only bureaucracy that did
   not know about the ticket.


27.Does the DMV find out about tickets received from Federal authorities?

   from tsu@cup.hp.com (Stanley Tsu) on 19 Feb 1993:

   OK, here's the scoop.  I called the Denver Office of the US District Court
   (800/366-5245) and the woman I spoke to said that the Feds do not give
   traffic violation data to Cal DMV for speeding violations, provided that one
   pays the collateral in a timely manner.  She said that if I wanted to
   contest the ticket she could set up a court appearance date over the phone.
   Protests in the Golden Gate National Regional Area (GGNRA) are handled at
   450 Golden Gate Ave, San Fran.


28.Did you know you'll soon lose the right to a trial for parking tickets?

   from capps@crash.cts.com (Melville Capps) Tue Dec 28 14:49:14 1993

   PARKING TICKETS and 1991 ASSEMBLY BILL 408

   Assembly Bill 408 changed the nature of contesting parking or standing
   ordinance violations from an infraction trial in municipal court to an
   administrative review by the same agency that issued the ticket.  In a
   criminal infraction trial the accused is afforded all their constitu-
   tional rights to Due Process, and the 5th amendment right not to be com-
   pelled to testify against himself, whereas in an administrative review
   the accused is not afforded these rights.  Parking and standing viola-
   tions are now subject to a civil penalty, and a special, limited civil
   procedure, provided in the statute, for contesting a citation.  This
   bill went into effect July 1, 1993.

   The bill was clearly designed by the legislature to increase revenues
   through parking fines, instead of increasing revenues through taxa-
   tion.  From talking to various city officials in San Diego County I
   have learned that this bill is part of a plan to eliminate as many
   types of cases as possible from the courts.  Also I learned that the
   state has been presenting this to the cities as a way that they can
   increase their revenues.

   Since A.B. 408 went into effect, the City of San Diego has raised its
   parking fines 50% and they even went to the trouble and expense of
   plugging up the nickel and dime slots on their parking meters to in-
   crease the number of tickets that they could write.  The City of
   Oceanside has also increased its parking fines, and I am sure that
   many other cities have increased their parking fine amounts as well.

   The legislature "determined" that handling parking tickets in court
   was a great burden on the court system, but that claim is false.  For
   example in 1990 in the north county judicial district of San Diego
   County there were over 200,000 cases of all types heard.  Of these
   about 115,000 were traffic tickets, but only 618 were contested park-
   ing tickets.

   The legislature "determined" that the existing procedure for contest-
   ing a parking ticket was a burden on the motorist, and that a criminal
   trial was not needed to insure a fair hearing.  This claim is also
   false, as the new procedure is more burdensome, complicated, and ex-
   pensive for the motorist as it requires more steps.  Even people who
   are innocent will tend to pay the fine, because of the time off from
   work and expense required to contest a ticket.


   PROBLEMS WITH A.B. 408

   1. The same agency that wrote the parking ordinance, that issued the
   citation, and that will profit from the fine, is the only agency that
   a person can contest a parking ticket before.  There is only a slight
   possibility that the accused can get a fair and impartial hearing un-
   der this system.  The accused does not get a trial before a judge.

   2.  In the "administrative review", the accused is presumed to be
   guilty if the issuing agency has a copy of the parking ticket and
   registration information from the DMV.  This is the only information
   that the issuing agency needs to present.  Unlike a criminal infrac-
   tion trial where the state has to prove the guilt of the accused, in
   this "administrative review" the accused has to prove his innocence.
   This "presumption of guilt" is un-American, and is the Napoleonic sys-

Section 2 of 4 - Prev - Next
All sections - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4

© allanswers.org | Terms of use