Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the court is it's indifference to each individual case -- not in the prescribed way, but more in a dismissive sense. The violation is assumed to be factual, no investigation is done -- either by the police or the court. Though the court is not assigned to investigation(ie. not the investigative branch), this may be a good adaptation -- I don't imaging a third party, impartial, investigator would be a bad thing. So you enter court mostly having the same complaint as the rest. In today's situation it happened to be related to a right turn from a light on a highway, near a popular shopping area. The intersection it's self is already extremely inefficient; but this is exasperated by the fact that more people spend their time looking for police that are going to try to give them a ticket for one thing or another -- rather than focusing on the drivers surrounding them. At virtually every other intersection in town, you can turn right on red. This seems to be a general standard around the country, except in very special circumstances.
Now I am a fan of the roundabout-method for dealing with such issues. This would allow traffic to constantly keep flowing, while increasing the amount of pedestrian space, and also allow more visual engagement between traffic and pedestrians. Simplifying the visual environment for pedestrians is a bonus, since traffic will always enter and exit from one direction.
So back to the topic at hand. There have been no less than one-thousand complaints about this, on message boards, and Craigslist -- especially among the Russian population -- which is at-least a third of the area. Nothing has been done about this because it makes the city quite a bit of money. There were probably a hundred people that went through court this morning, out of those people I would say that 75% of them were there for taking a right on red at that particular corner or for a similar set of unfamiliar circumstances on one of the 4 or more funky intersections that exist in and around town. The only victim here is an ordinance. These people didn't put anyone in danger, didn't cause an accident, and to the best of my knowledge no damage was done. Though they are paying hundreds, and in some rare cases, thousands of dollars.
As an example of such silliness. A truck driver was on a call when he was pulled over. The only ticket that he got from his meeting with the fine Woodburn PD, was a ticket for using his cell phone when he was driving. They came to this conclusion by insisting that he had to have touched his cell phone, even though he was using a 'hands free device', since he accepted the call. Honestly the gentleman indicated that he had indeed touched the phone to answer it, "...but that couldn't be illegal, surly pushing a button on the phone, as you would a radio, isn't illegal...?" he asked the judge. "Yes sir it is", she replies. "Now if the button had been on a Bluetooth device on your ear, that would be acceptable.", she explained.
Now this man doesn't make much money. He was 'reasonably' complying with the law -- I think that used to be a thing -- and also there is the fact that the officer would never had known he was on the phone if he hadn't pulled him over -- and there were no other violations. I can hear some of you rolling your eyes. Look, stop your internal dialog, ...'but Jon, he was breaking the law,... and ignorance of the law is no excuse...', 'blah, blah, blah'. You must work for the court or the city and be protecting your meal ticket. Regardless of what you say, yes, the law should be fair --ie. just. It's goal is to provide justice, not create illogical, convoluted, and agenda driven laws to bring in money for the police, courts, and politicians. It shouldn't be a revenue stream.
This has been a problem for far too long. Logically I would like to think that we are already paying them -- so why should money even be a motivation. Though I must admit, that may be part of the problem. Though I can't imagine a situation where I would think that the 'traffic cops', and the ' meter maids' are worth the money they are getting now. There seems like a better way -- like just not charging to park on a public street. Though it would sound ridiculous to someone who had never heard of the concept and was instructed to simply deal with it logically, though it has become something that we accept as the norm.
That is the way it looked in the courtroom today. A bunch of sheep that were just used to getting 'shaved' and have accepted it -- for the most part -- as just something that they were mandated to go through.
There was a bit of animosity from some people that really felt wronged (ie. the ones with biggest fines.) -- but for the most part everyone would just rather pay the fine and not pay with more of their time and money for a system it was sure would find them guilty in the end -- even though they felt they weren't.
We are talking reasonable people here; working, basically responsible, and fairly well dressed people. You wouldn't think, looking in from the outside, that this is a government by and for the people.
NOTES:
As for my case, which I am sure you are wondering about if you have come this far, I went with 'no contest' to one count and 'not guilty' to the other (I write about both when all is said and done, obviously.). So in three or so months -- they'll be sending me a date -- I will have to go back, a bit more prepared and deal with the rest. As for the no contest -- because I would say I made some good points -- the fine was halved.
No comments:
Post a Comment