By Douglas V. Gibbs
On Friday I was in court to fight a citation I had received while in my big rig. The citation issued was in regards to "inappropriate lane." Whenever a freeway drops to three lanes of traffic, the slow lane is the drive lane for rigs, and the center lane is the passing lane. If you use the passing lane, after passing slower traffic you are supposed to immediately move back into the slow lane. In my case, I moved into the center lane as a courtesy, and for the sake of safety, to more easily allow merging traffic to enter the freeway from a busy on-ramp. After passing the slower traffic (for some strange reason people don't utilize the full length of the on-ramp to gain enough speed to be even with the flow of traffic, and instead get on at about forty miles per hour) I flipped on my right signal to move back into the slow lane, but the vehicles refused to make a hole and allow me back over. By the time it looked like I might be able to move back into the slow lane, the next on-ramp was coming up, and it was loaded with traffic merging onto the freeway too. I remained in the center lane out of courtesy, and in the spirit of safety. The same scenario of trying to get back over, and no cars yielding, happened again, and yet a third on-ramp came up, so I elected to stay in the passing lane to allow those cars on the freeway as well. By the time I was finally able to get back over into the drive lane, a California Highway Patrol had caught up to me, flashed his lights, and pulled me over. I explained my dilemma, but he did not accept my argument, and issued the citation anyway. In his opinion, I had remained in the passing lane for too long.
In California, including U-6, the unemployment rate is about 25%, meaning that one in four is out of work. There are 10,000 truckers looking for work, so having a job driving a rig is a fortunate thing, indeed. The companies know this, and the insurance companies have come to be very strict on coverage. Even one point on a driving record, when it comes to truckers, can result in an increase in insurance rates, and therefore termination of employment by the employer. There are plenty of drivers with perfect records out there seeking work, so why hang on to a driver with a point against him that is costing extra on insurance?
An inappropriate lane ticket carries with it a point against the driver on his record. Not only did I feel I was not guilty of violating the law regarding appropriate lane, since I was acting in a manner where I was passing traffic in the other lane, plus acting in a courteous and safe manner, I figured that I had a good chance to win the case in trial.
I extended twice, hoping that the longer away from the date of citation we got, the less likely the cop would show up in court. If the officer fails to appear at the time of the trial, the case is dismissed.
While waiting, I got to talking to another trucker and I told him about my experience a bunch of months back when in the slow lane a car had slammed on its brakes right in front of me. Had I have been fully loaded, with the inability to stop quickly, I felt that the driver of the vehicle could very well have been killed. The other trucker informed me that what probably happened was an insurance scam that's been going around. The driver gets in front of a rig, slams on the brakes and comes to a complete stop, and allows the truck to plow into the car. Because it is a rear end collision, the driver of the rig would automatically be at fault, and such a crash would cause enough damage and danger to life and limb that the company and driver could then be sued. Of course the insurance company, rather than go to court, would prepare a large payoff to settle out of court, and the "victim," if he survives the accident, walks away with a very large sum of money.
I was fortunate that I was unloaded, and far enough back to be able to react in a manner that avoided the collision.
Once in the courtroom, I observed about half of the cases before mine was called. The officer showed up, and was dressed in a suit which meant it was his day off. I met him in the parking lot immediately after, showing me that he appeared only for my case.
Great.
The judge listened to my argument, saw my sparkling clean record, and decided to alter the charge to one that carried no point against me, but would roughly be about the same bail. The State is happy because it got its money, and I am happy because I have no point against me, meaning I still have a job.
Many of the cases before mine involved red light cameras, and the videos that accompanied them. Each case that the driver tried to fight was found guilty because the video clearly showed what happened. The driver had no chance up against the video evidence.
During one of these videos, the judge made an eerie prediction.
The judge said, "Someday soon we won't need these courts anymore, because the cameras will be everywhere."
In London there is a camera about every 100 meters, as I understand it. You can't do anything outside without someone, somewhere, in the government, being able to monitor your actions.
Is that what the judge was suggesting we would be seeing soon here in the States?
What was worse, he seemed happy about it.
But if video became king, and the courts were no longer needed, isn't that against our Constitutional rights to have afforded to us due process?
Dangerous stuff, definitely of a leftist Orwellian nature.
Makes you think. . . you know.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment