Traffic violation procedures

crimsonsailor7 said:Look, you don't actually mail the appeal through the post office; you have to file it directly with the municipal court, which is clearly laid out in the legal remedies instructions they give you.
Everything else has already been picked apart and discussed down to the smallest detail right here on this thread, so maybe just give it a quick read... 🙂

silentscout28 said:I'm not sure if he was doing under-the-table work for a specific contractor or just flying solo.
I don't have exact figures because those things shift constantly, but honestly, I don't think your old man is going to lose his pension entirely. If they were to pull his benefits, they’d be stripping away his "sole means of subsistence," and when he eventually ends up in front of a judge, that needs to be the very first thing he brings up. The fine will likely be heavy, sure, but he really ought to consult a lawyer regarding the statute of limitations for stuff like this. Everything has a statute of limitations unless we're talking serious felonies like murder, etc. My take? If he can't get them to let it lapse due to the statute of limitations, they might try to garnish his benefits to pay off the debt. That shouldn't be too catastrophic since they can only seize a portion of it—plus, if he has no other way to pay, they could technically substitute it with jail time (not that I'm joking). My suggestion: look into the statute of limitations, talk to a lawyer about how much time he might have to work with, and leave it at that. I'm not an expert on this specific mess, so I can't offer much more than that!
Maybe try looking for advice on http://www.avvo.com

Sam Murphy said:So, I ended up getting hit with a minor traffic violation, and while the municipal court partially accepted my defense, they still slapped me with a fine that, once you factor in the court fees and the police investigation costs, totals $500. I’m trying to figure out if filing a new appeal with the higher appellate court puts me at risk of having the penalty increased, and whether I'll actually have to show up for another hearing or if they'll just rule on it in my absence... My main goal here is really just to buy some more time because things are a little tight financially right now, so I was hoping to request an installment plan if possible. If there's no chance they'll hike the fine, then I feel like I don't really have anything to lose, right? From what I've gathered from reading through this thread, the appellate court doesn't typically increase the penalty, and usually, they don't even decrease it either, which makes me think an appeal might just be a way to stall for time... I'm curious how much extra time I could realistically get, and it seems to me like the only real cost would be the postage for sending the appeal itself, am I thinking about this correctly?

Jesse James5 said:The fine handed down by the local magistrate can't be increased during the appeal process at the higher level...
it's mostly about buying time...if the amount is too steep, just ask the court for a payment plan...you don't even need to appeal for that; you can just show up or submit a written request...
the costs set by the initial court usually aren't recalculated by the appellate court, so they generally stay the same...
you send two identical copies of your appeal to the same court that issued the original ruling (under the updated laws, I think it's called a judgment now), and they'll forward it along with the case file to the superior court...

rapidtinker45 said:Does anyone know which specific part of the updated traffic code covers illegal passing on a solid line? I’m trying to figure out what the actual penalties are—like, how much is the fine and do they take away your license? I feel like I’ve combed through the whole legal code a bunch of times now, but I just can’t find anything strictly addressing passing over a solid line...

darkranger8 said:Hey everyone, I’ve got a few questions and would really appreciate some insight.

So, there was a car accident, and the police showed up to do their investigation. I handed over my ID and insurance info just like they asked, and I took a breathalyzer test. I walked away with two pieces of paperwork: one was the official alcohol and drug test report showing a 0.0, and the other was a notice stating my plates were impounded because the car isn't drivable anymore. I didn't get a copy of the actual accident report on the spot. The cops basically told me I'm at fault here—that the other driver isn't responsible and the damage is going to hit my insurance policy.

So, here’s what I’m wondering:

Do I actually need to be there when he goes to meet with my insurance company to get his car appraised?

And does he even need my specific insurance details for that appraisal process? (I don't think he has them since I gave everything to the officers rather than him, and the official accident report should be arriving in the mail later anyway.)

Then there's the accident itself. I lost control of my vehicle—even though I was totally within the speed limit—and ended up spinning out until I was sitting perpendicular to the road. That's when he slammed into me. The police are pinning it on me because I lost control of the car in the first place.

But since he's the one who actually struck my car, and usually the person who rear-ends someone is the one held liable, shouldn't he be sharing some of the blame for not keeping a safe following distance or failing to brake in time?

Thanks for any help.

darkranger8 said:Hey everyone, I’ve got a few questions and would really appreciate some insight.

So, there was a car accident, and the police showed up to do their investigation. I handed over my ID and insurance info just like they asked, and I took a breathalyzer test. I walked away with two pieces of paperwork: one was the official alcohol and drug test report showing a 0.0, and the other was a notice stating my plates were impounded because the car isn't drivable anymore. I didn't get a copy of the actual accident report on the spot. The cops basically told me I'm at fault here—that the other driver isn't responsible and the damage is going to hit my insurance policy.

So, here’s what I’m wondering:

Do I actually need to be there when he goes to meet with my insurance company to get his car appraised?

And does he even need my specific insurance details for that appraisal process? (I don't think he has them since I gave everything to the officers rather than him, and the official accident report should be arriving in the mail later anyway.)

Then there's the accident itself. I lost control of my vehicle—even though I was totally within the speed limit—and ended up spinning out until I was sitting perpendicular to the road. That's when he slammed into me. The police are pinning it on me because I lost control of the car in the first place.

But since he's the one who actually struck my car, and usually the person who rear-ends someone is the one held liable, shouldn't he be sharing some of the blame for not keeping a safe following distance or failing to brake in time?

Thanks for any help.

darkranger8 said:Hey everyone, I’ve got a few questions and would really appreciate some insight.

So, there was a car accident, and the police showed up to do their investigation. I handed over my ID and insurance info just like they asked, and I took a breathalyzer test. I walked away with two pieces of paperwork: one was the official alcohol and drug test report showing a 0.0, and the other was a notice stating my plates were impounded because the car isn't drivable anymore. I didn't get a copy of the actual accident report on the spot. The cops basically told me I'm at fault here—that the other driver isn't responsible and the damage is going to hit my insurance policy.

So, here’s what I’m wondering:

Do I actually need to be there when he goes to meet with my insurance company to get his car appraised?

And does he even need my specific insurance details for that appraisal process? (I don't think he has them since I gave everything to the officers rather than him, and the official accident report should be arriving in the mail later anyway.)

Then there's the accident itself. I lost control of my vehicle—even though I was totally within the speed limit—and ended up spinning out until I was sitting perpendicular to the road. That's when he slammed into me. The police are pinning it on me because I lost control of the car in the first place.

But since he's the one who actually struck my car, and usually the person who rear-ends someone is the one held liable, shouldn't he be sharing some of the blame for not keeping a safe following distance or failing to brake in time?

Thanks for any help.

darkranger8 said:Hey everyone, I’ve got a few questions and would really appreciate some insight.

So, there was a car accident, and the police showed up to do their investigation. I handed over my ID and insurance info just like they asked, and I took a breathalyzer test. I walked away with two pieces of paperwork: one was the official alcohol and drug test report showing a 0.0, and the other was a notice stating my plates were impounded because the car isn't drivable anymore. I didn't get a copy of the actual accident report on the spot. The cops basically told me I'm at fault here—that the other driver isn't responsible and the damage is going to hit my insurance policy.

So, here’s what I’m wondering:

Do I actually need to be there when he goes to meet with my insurance company to get his car appraised?

And does he even need my specific insurance details for that appraisal process? (I don't think he has them since I gave everything to the officers rather than him, and the official accident report should be arriving in the mail later anyway.)

Then there's the accident itself. I lost control of my vehicle—even though I was totally within the speed limit—and ended up spinning out until I was sitting perpendicular to the road. That's when he slammed into me. The police are pinning it on me because I lost control of the car in the first place.

But since he's the one who actually struck my car, and usually the person who rear-ends someone is the one held liable, shouldn't he be sharing some of the blame for not keeping a safe following distance or failing to brake in time?

Thanks for any help.

Lawrence Wood56 said:Nah.

Section 176 of the Highway Safety Act.
If you're ever involved in a fender bender where nobody actually got hurt and it's just damage to the cars, They really ought to be.If possible, maybe just get those cars off the road right away to keep traffic moving? And then someone should probably fill out and sign the European Report or whatever else is needed. Maybe we should swap some personal info and vehicle details. I guess..

It’s a bit tough to really weigh in on this based on just one sentence. But, I guess it looks like they're leaning on the Highway Safety Act here—you know, that rule about drivers needing to maintain a safe speed. I guess we should probably just adapt. I guess you have to account for everything—road quality, visibility, weather, how your car's handling and load are set up, and even how heavy traffic is—just so you can stop in time for whatever comes up. It's basically about being able to react to anything you can reasonably see coming.

I guess it’s not even about breaking the rules, it's more like the speed limit just isn't set right for this road.

I guess that whole idea about the person who rear-ends someone being automatically at fault isn't really backed by science. To me, blame for following too closely or not adjusting to someone else's speed should probably be looked at through actual facts—like where and when it happened, road conditions, how the highway was designed, and even how the drivers were feeling. There are just so many other factors to consider.

btw, I guess someone's fault only really gets proven in the proper place—the court.

Lawrence Wood56 said:Nah.

Section 176 of the Highway Safety Act.
If you're ever involved in a fender bender where nobody actually got hurt and it's just damage to the cars, They really ought to be.If possible, maybe just get those cars off the road right away to keep traffic moving? And then someone should probably fill out and sign the European Report or whatever else is needed. Maybe we should swap some personal info and vehicle details. I guess..

It’s a bit tough to really weigh in on this based on just one sentence. But, I guess it looks like they're leaning on the Highway Safety Act here—you know, that rule about drivers needing to maintain a safe speed. I guess we should probably just adapt. I guess you have to account for everything—road quality, visibility, weather, how your car's handling and load are set up, and even how heavy traffic is—just so you can stop in time for whatever comes up. It's basically about being able to react to anything you can reasonably see coming.

I guess it’s not even about breaking the rules, it's more like the speed limit just isn't set right for this road.

I guess that whole idea about the person who rear-ends someone being automatically at fault isn't really backed by science. To me, blame for following too closely or not adjusting to someone else's speed should probably be looked at through actual facts—like where and when it happened, road conditions, how the highway was designed, and even how the drivers were feeling. There are just so many other factors to consider.

btw, I guess someone's fault only really gets proven in the proper place—the court.

Lawrence Wood56 said:Nah.

Section 176 of the Highway Safety Act.
If you're ever involved in a fender bender where nobody actually got hurt and it's just damage to the cars, They really ought to be.If possible, maybe just get those cars off the road right away to keep traffic moving? And then someone should probably fill out and sign the European Report or whatever else is needed. Maybe we should swap some personal info and vehicle details. I guess..

It’s a bit tough to really weigh in on this based on just one sentence. But, I guess it looks like they're leaning on the Highway Safety Act here—you know, that rule about drivers needing to maintain a safe speed. I guess we should probably just adapt. I guess you have to account for everything—road quality, visibility, weather, how your car's handling and load are set up, and even how heavy traffic is—just so you can stop in time for whatever comes up. It's basically about being able to react to anything you can reasonably see coming.

I guess it’s not even about breaking the rules, it's more like the speed limit just isn't set right for this road.

I guess that whole idea about the person who rear-ends someone being automatically at fault isn't really backed by science. To me, blame for following too closely or not adjusting to someone else's speed should probably be looked at through actual facts—like where and when it happened, road conditions, how the highway was designed, and even how the drivers were feeling. There are just so many other factors to consider.

btw, I guess someone's fault only really gets proven in the proper place—the court.

driftingbadger97 said:Got two questions for you guys: 😁

* First, about this fine for riding the bus without a ticket... it was like twenty bucks, and I have 8 days to settle it. 🤔 Technically, that gives me about 4 more days before it's overdue, but 😍 ... honestly, I just really don't feel like paying it. 😁 Back when I was a freshman in college, early on before I even had my student ID, I caught a fine too. But 🤷 nothing ever came of it, luckily. Some classmates told me there's a statute of limitations after two years.
So, I’m wondering how much time actually passes before they come looking, and what kind of trouble I'd actually be in if I skip out on this 😉 since I still have 4 days left. Any advice? Bring it on. 😉
(Sorry if this is a stupid question)

* Second question: About six months ago, the police pulled me over. I didn't have my driver's license OR my ID on me at the time. 😲 (It was one of those days where I grabbed the wrong bag when I headed out 🙄). Since then, there hasn't been a single word from them. When should I realistically expect a phone call, a summons, or a bill showing up at my door? 🤷

And a little bonus question:
* To get my high school diploma certified at my old SCHOOL, do I absolutely have to bring the original physical diploma, or can I get it done without it? You know, the whole official packet containing the diploma plus the four years of transcripts that costs... $20?

1. The statute was 2 years, now it's 4. And the guys running the local transit authority are way too aggressive (I swear, they'll hunt you down 😍) for this stuff to just vanish. You can pay it (which I suggest), or you can mess around with the court system like I did 😁 But look, I'm from Chicago, so I'm gonna give them hell 😍
   I've got about ~43 months left until it's gone 😁
2. No clue. One friend of mine got hit with the bill after 5 days, another waited 3 months, and one guy never heard a thing. It totally depends on the cops, depends on the courts, and nobody is calling you—they're just gonna mail the bill to your house. I think $100 it's all up in the air 🤷

darkranger8 said:He grabbed my cell number and full name, just like I did with his. He didn't ask for any info on my car, and I didn't ask for anything regarding his. It looks like neither of us had heard a peep about that European Report, either—honestly, the cops didn't mention it to us at all. They did take down my vehicle details, though, so I'm pretty sure they pulled the same info from him.

Are you actually sure this article is talking about those situations where the cops show up to process a crime scene? To me, it only really makes sense if we're talking about cleaning things up privately without any law enforcement getting involved.

So, I finally asked him at the end if he’s actually going to need that for the assessment or if it's just extra noise, you know? 🤷

Looking at it from a common-sense, health-conscious perspective, I can't help but feel that if I wasn't matching my speed to the situation, then he couldn't have been properly adjusted either...

Look, I know it hasn't been scientifically proven in a lab setting yet, but honestly, in all my years of seeing how things go down, when there isn't any alcohol involved, the pattern is pretty much statistically undeniable.

So, what’s the move here? Just show up to court, face the music, and see how the chips fall where they may?

darkranger8 said:He grabbed my cell number and full name, just like I did with his. He didn't ask for any info on my car, and I didn't ask for anything regarding his. It looks like neither of us had heard a peep about that European Report, either—honestly, the cops didn't mention it to us at all. They did take down my vehicle details, though, so I'm pretty sure they pulled the same info from him.

Are you actually sure this article is talking about those situations where the cops show up to process a crime scene? To me, it only really makes sense if we're talking about cleaning things up privately without any law enforcement getting involved.

So, I finally asked him at the end if he’s actually going to need that for the assessment or if it's just extra noise, you know? 🤷

Looking at it from a common-sense, health-conscious perspective, I can't help but feel that if I wasn't matching my speed to the situation, then he couldn't have been properly adjusted either...

Look, I know it hasn't been scientifically proven in a lab setting yet, but honestly, in all my years of seeing how things go down, when there isn't any alcohol involved, the pattern is pretty much statistically undeniable.

So, what’s the move here? Just show up to court, face the music, and see how the chips fall where they may?

darkranger8 said:He grabbed my cell number and full name, just like I did with his. He didn't ask for any info on my car, and I didn't ask for anything regarding his. It looks like neither of us had heard a peep about that European Report, either—honestly, the cops didn't mention it to us at all. They did take down my vehicle details, though, so I'm pretty sure they pulled the same info from him.

Are you actually sure this article is talking about those situations where the cops show up to process a crime scene? To me, it only really makes sense if we're talking about cleaning things up privately without any law enforcement getting involved.

So, I finally asked him at the end if he’s actually going to need that for the assessment or if it's just extra noise, you know? 🤷

Looking at it from a common-sense, health-conscious perspective, I can't help but feel that if I wasn't matching my speed to the situation, then he couldn't have been properly adjusted either...

Look, I know it hasn't been scientifically proven in a lab setting yet, but honestly, in all my years of seeing how things go down, when there isn't any alcohol involved, the pattern is pretty much statistically undeniable.

So, what’s the move here? Just show up to court, face the music, and see how the chips fall where they may?

darkranger8 said:He grabbed my cell number and full name, just like I did with his. He didn't ask for any info on my car, and I didn't ask for anything regarding his. It looks like neither of us had heard a peep about that European Report, either—honestly, the cops didn't mention it to us at all. They did take down my vehicle details, though, so I'm pretty sure they pulled the same info from him.

Are you actually sure this article is talking about those situations where the cops show up to process a crime scene? To me, it only really makes sense if we're talking about cleaning things up privately without any law enforcement getting involved.

So, I finally asked him at the end if he’s actually going to need that for the assessment or if it's just extra noise, you know? 🤷

Looking at it from a common-sense, health-conscious perspective, I can't help but feel that if I wasn't matching my speed to the situation, then he couldn't have been properly adjusted either...

Look, I know it hasn't been scientifically proven in a lab setting yet, but honestly, in all my years of seeing how things go down, when there isn't any alcohol involved, the pattern is pretty much statistically undeniable.

So, what’s the move here? Just show up to court, face the music, and see how the chips fall where they may?

Lawrence Wood56 said:Whether the cops actually show up or not doesn't really matter; the main thing is that you're always supposed to swap info.

Common sense doesn't always line up with how the legal system actually works.
You win or lose based strictly on the facts. If you really think you've got a case, I guess you should just ask the judge to call for an expert witness during the main trial.

You really have to figure out what actually caused the crash—whether it was speeding, an unsafe pass, or just being exhausted. Alcohol, drugs, or meds are more like contributing factors that might or might not have been the main reason it happened, though I guess you definitely can't just ignore them.

I guess that's probably the best way to go about it. Good luck!