Washington Traffic Law Blog : Washington Traffic Lawyer & Attorney : Jon Zimmerman Law Firm : Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma

Recently the Washington Department of Transportation released data collected January 1 - March 31, 2007, that ranked the top locations for vehicles moving faster than 90 MPH based on the highest number of vehicles traveling 90 MPH or quicker. Of the top 10 locations, 6 of them were in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, in places including Issaquah, Fife, Seattle, and Tacoma. It is unknown whether every inch of state highway was tested, or whether western Washington was specifically targeted, or whether the top locations have a higher number of vehicles traveling 90 or over because more cars cross that area or if the vehicles traveling 90 or over actually amount to a higher percentage of speeding cars versus all cars that are traveling a given section of roadway. What is clear is that the State Patrol is stepping up enforcement (this means speeding tickets and other citations for traffic offenses such as negligent driving and reckless driving) in areas that it believes has a higher number of vehicles that speed.  This makes economic sense for the State Patrol - after all, the more tickets issued, there is arguably a better chance at committed findings and fines, all other things being equal. It is best for drivers to take notice of these stepped-up enforcement locations and if the unfortunate happens and you get a traffic ticket, give me a call, I can help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A new law that will make it easier for the police to issue a traffic ticket and impound (the fancy legal term for legally restraining) your vehicle will take effect on Sunday, July 22, 2007. Although the Legislature previously allowed the police to impound a vehicle for alleged criminal law violations and other circumstances (for example, the vehicle was reported stolen, or the vehicle is occupying a restricted zone), this new law allows the police to seize a vehicle if the vehicle is on a public street AND the vehicle has an expired registration of more than 45 days. BEWARE: This law change means that a police officer who pulls you over while you are driving, presumably so that your vehicle becomes parked on a public roadway, could ticket you and impound your vehicle if the registration is expired long enough. It could mean that if your vehicle is parked on the street outside your home, and you've not updated your tabs, your vehicle would be subject to impoundment if your tabs are expired for more than 45 days. Avoid the costly expenses of obtaining a traffic ticket and paying impound fees. Keep your registration up to date and if for some reason you cannot keep your registration up to date, move your vehicle onto private property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

According to a PEMCO Northwest Insurance poll released last month, Washington drivers who have household income of more than $75,000 a year are more likely than those of household income below $75,000 to speed and talk on a cell phone. Among those drivers who are more likely to speed, the poll found that these drivers are under-55 males who earn at least $75,000 with one or more children at home. The least likely speeders? Empty-nester females over the age of 55 who earn less than $75,000, as well as single drivers without children. But here's what the poll doesn't show: whether the more likely speeders are actually more likely to get pulled over and cited for a speeding ticket or another traffic offense. A conclusion in the poll is that one would think that drivers with children would slow down and obey the speed limit, "helping to ensure they'll be around to raise their kids." However, the poll says nothing about whether parents are more likely to be involved in fatal collisions or that the absence of fatal collisions will help parents be around to raise their kids any more than quitting smoking or abstaining from trans-fats. What is more probable is that PEMCO and other insurance companies will use this and other similar data as an excuse to raise insurance rates for certain groups of people. It could be that under-55 male drivers with higher income, especially those who receive a speeding ticket, will see a remarkable rise in their insurance rates. Those drivers concerned about insurance rates would be wise to fight their tickets.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Although we often talk about speeding tickets and traffic offenses here at home in the State of Washington, I wanted to take a few moments to reflect on traffic tickets abroad, and the rights we enjoy here at home. Yesterday marked America's 231st anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Each July 4, we celebrate everything that is great about America - our food, our flag, our freedom. But 231 years later, we still have it better in America than our brothers in Britain. Just last week, two British traffic rebels regretfully lost their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the court that Europe created to hear cases from citizens of member countries that traditionally have been unable to stay out of wars with one another. The issue in this case was the right not to incriminate yourself - a right so basic that we've had it in America since 1791. The idea for due process in the Fifth Amendment apparently was a British one stemming from the Magna Carta in 1215, but apparently what a fundamental right is in America doesn't really exist in (it's not so) "Great" Britain, or the rest of Europe for that matter. Here's what happened - Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran owned cars that were caught speeding by traffic cameras (not the police, mind your gap). Neither man would say who was driving their vehicles (O'Halloran admitted to driving but later retracted his statement), claiming a right to silence and a right against self-incrimination. We call that the Fifth Amendment here, but again, these individuals are British. The Court ruled against the men, 15-2, reasoning that if the men could "prove" that they didn't know who drove their cars AND if they could not be expected to know, they would then not be punished under British law. Wow. What an uphill battle - in Britain you're guilty until you prove you're not. I think there was a war over that! At the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., sunlight shines on a quote in the interior frieze below the dome: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." It is fitting that we remember that while we are free to not incriminate ourselves and to fight our traffic tickets here in the United States and in the State of Washington, our European ancestors do not enjoy that right. As we reflect on the basic rights we enjoy here at home, the words of Mr. Francis, who lost his case last month, is important to keep in mind: "The fight for freedom goes on. We can't allow the tyrants, who are taking away our rights, to succeed. They have to be stopped." Very Jeffersonian. Happy Independence Day. I hope you had a great 4th.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

This was the topic of a recent news story, which did not get the answer quite right. The short answer is generally no, not at this time, and drivers should not go rushing to the stores to buy GPS devices to counter speeding tickets. (The exception would be if you could bring in an expert to testify about the high accuracy of GPS as a speed measuring device - and even then a court in Washington would probably be reluctant to allow such new technology into evidence). Imagine this: you're driving a long, minding your own business, and Officer TicketCop pulls you over and he issues you a speeding ticket. He tells you that your car, according to his RADAR (radio detection and ranging) device, clocked your vehicle traveling 10 miles over the posted speed limit. Simple enough, right? Not exactly. You counter that you have a GPS system, which stated that your vehicle was traveling less than the posted speed. Can you use the GPS measurement to counter the officer's RADAR unit? Not really. The law is not developed for courts to agree on using GPS as a speed measuring device. RADAR, although it has a lot of problems, has been around for a very long time, and used properly, courts will allow a measurement of speed based on RADAR into evidence. But GPS is newer and based on new technology, you argue. Well yes, that's true, but from a court's perspective, you would need an expert on GPS to vouch for GPS's accuracy as a speed measuring device as well as how it is properly used. Assuming you win on that, you would still have to show that GPS is better than RADAR, and that your GPS measurement is more accurate than the Officer TicketCop's RADAR measurement, and that you employed the GPS device correctly. GPS is used for purposes other than speed, whereas a RADAR gun is used to measure vehicle speed (and as a reason for Officer TicketCop to give a lot of traffic infractions). One of the problems with a GPS system is the user - a user would have to show that the user's GPS measurement is accurate based on the way the user employed the system. Likely a user who is also the driver would have a tough time vouching for speed and vouching that the device was being used properly at the same time. Also, while a GPS device may be useful in measuring the distance a car has traveled, and average speed over a long distance (say point Seattle to point Tacoma), there is no indication that GPS will measure one or more speeds accurately over fixed, shorter distances (say 800 feet) in a matter of seconds. If you just received a speeding ticket or any other type of traffic infraction in the State of Washington, call me, I can help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks