PDA

View Full Version : Citation for stopping to "take pictures"



AFSmithphoto
5-May-2010, 09:57
Hello to all,
Recently while traveling through Wisconsin on a long, 12-state road trip, my cohort and I stopped along the interstate to take a couple of shots. Our vehicle was contained completely within the shoulder, and this was FAR from a busy section of road. While we were shooting, a state trooper coming down from the opposite direction took my friends license and ordered us both back into the car until he was able to reach a turn around and come up behind he. He proceeded to cite us for "stopping for non-emergency purposes" and threatened to take us to jail if we did not pay on the spot due to our out of state plates. He claimed this is standard procedure in EVERY state, yet I have done this HUNDREDS of times in nearly every state in the US, on interstates and off, and yet I have never received or even heard of anyone receiving a citation. Has this fate ever befallen anyone here? Were you in Wisconsin?
The icing on the cake was that as we were pulling away, someone else pulled off in front of us to open and shut their rear passenger side door and he detained them as well. (Though I obviously can't say that he actually cited them) Needless to say, Wisconsin won't be on any road trips I'll be taking anytime soon.

evan clarke
5-May-2010, 10:12
Did the guy collect cash???..Evan Clarke

dsphotog
5-May-2010, 10:12
You might contact the troopers office & report that, since he possibly pocketed the "fine/bail".

BetterSense
5-May-2010, 10:16
Wow. He was obviously looking to pocket the money. Was he in a real car, with an apparently real badge?

Kirk Gittings
5-May-2010, 10:19
In every state, to gain more revenue, the interstate police (State Police in our state) are enforcing laws they never bothered to before to raise additional revenue.

Brian Schall
5-May-2010, 10:28
In every state I've ever lived in, it's always have been illegal to stop on an interstate except for emergency purposes. The danger comes from trying to reenter the traffic stream. How often this is enforced is another question.

GSX4
5-May-2010, 10:55
Wisconsin is VERY draconian on their trooper laws. I live in MN and carry my c/card when I venture into 'Sconny' If you are ticketed, you are expected to pay on the spot with cash or credit card. Failure to do so means you GO TO JAIL until funds are secured to pay the fine right then and there. As for stopping on an interstate, did you take drivers ed? That's against the law right there to take pictures without having an emergency situation. You are only allowed to stop for emergency purposes because you, a) broke down, b) had a medical emergency, c) had a flat, or d) were assisting someone else who did have a problem... ie help change a tire or give them water for an overheating situation or something like that. That's the case regardless what state you live in or drive through.

dsphotog
5-May-2010, 11:16
Wow! Fines paid on the spot?!
It would seem Wisc. is a great place to be FROM.....
....As far away FROM as possible!

AF-ULF
5-May-2010, 11:41
it does seem incredibly unfair doesn't it. it is illegal to stop on the interstate for non-emergency purposes. You stopped on the interstate for non-emergency purposes and got a ticket. Oh the injustice of it all.

Sevo
5-May-2010, 11:48
He proceeded to cite us for "stopping for non-emergency purposes"

Well, what is US and Wisconsin policy? In just about any place in Europe I've ever travelled it is indeed forbidden to stop on multi-lane roads for non-emergency purposes, except for designated parking bays - though YMMV as to where and when it is practically enforced (in southern Italy I've seen a family have a picnic on the shoulder of a six lane motorway - you'd better not try a stunt like that near Milan, and even less so anywhere in northern Europe).

dsphotog
5-May-2010, 11:49
The injustice is that in a free society one is entitled to a trial. It's very unjust for the police to be able to stop people and fine them on the spot, then arrest them if they refuse to pay. The injustice in that should be clear, although given the current state of our republic, it may appear just business as usual to some.

Exactly! It's all about generating revenue.
They say there are no quotas....
Next, people will be checked for legal citzenship.....
....Oh, I guess thats already happening.

Michael Chmilar
5-May-2010, 11:51
The injustice is that in a free society one is entitled to a trial.

He had the option for a trial: refuse to pay, get arrested, arraigned, have a trial.

AF-ULF
5-May-2010, 11:54
The injustice is that in a free society one is entitled to a trial. It's very unjust for the police to be able to stop people and fine them on the spot, then arrest them if they refuse to pay. The injustice in that should be clear, although given the current state of our republic, it may appear just business as usual to some.

He is still entitled to a hearing. If he wants to fight it in court, he can.

sultanofcognac
5-May-2010, 12:14
In most European countries (obviously not Wisconsin) it is a fineable offense to stop on any motorway (highway/interstate) unless it is an emergency - and you WILL receive a very large fine if you do stop. I think the same goes for most US states - although I've lived in 9 states, but not Wisconsin, and never remember it being enforced.

Just another 'experience' to tell your grandchildren :D

Important question. . . are the cameras safe?

Ivan J. Eberle
5-May-2010, 14:28
Traffic citations of this kind are ordinarily summary offenses, infractions which do not rise to the level of a misdemeanor crime. People are not typically arrested or sent to jail for infractions. The circumstances of the stop make abundantly clear that this was not a serious offense ("I'm guilty, here's my $277.78"/"Off you go then; have a nice day!")

It's an abuse of the American jurisprudence system and abhorrent to this citizen's sense of fairness and decency that the threat of jail is used to strong-arm people into pleading guilty on the spot so that they remain free, versus the choice of going to jail to exercise the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence. Particularly when we're discussing what's essentially a parking ticket.

It bothers me more that while some have not only accepted this extra-constitution rights grab with nary a whimper, others seek to blame the victim.

(And, no, "extra-Constitutional" does not mean "more" constitutional.)

bobwysiwyg
5-May-2010, 15:04
Interesting responses. Seems to me the OP did break the law. The fact that he was fined on-the-spot is most likely because he was not a resident. This is common practice. What are the chances that if just cited with a court date, he would take the time, trouble and expense to return. I'm guessing about zero. On top of that it is assumed the police officer was on the take. Sounds to me like blaming others before accepting responsibility for one's own actions. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

bvstaples
5-May-2010, 15:54
In this day and age of instant information access, you could give an out-of-state driver a citation, and if they failed to pay or appear, that person could be found and arrested by the local constables on behalf of the citing department.

Yes, he broke a law; yes he received a citation; but it sounds like his choice for this very minor offense was to be tried and found guilty on the spot, or go to jail. If all people who were stopped in Wisconsin had only that choice, so be it: but it's discriminatory because you reside elsewhere in the United States.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Mexico annexed Wisconsin. At least south of the border I'm fully aware that I may be pulled over at any time, tried and found guilty, and fined (amount based on the whim of the federale) on the spot.

Brian

AFSmithphoto
5-May-2010, 16:13
Yes it was illegal to stop. But just because a law is on the books does not mean you should expect it be enforced. Oral sex is still illegal in several states. Its illegal to have sex with a virgin in Washington D.C. My favourite is Alabama where its illegal to wear a fake moustache that makes people laugh in church.

In Wisconsin its illegal to:

Kiss on a train.

Cut a woman's hair.

Wear red in public if you are a woman.

Should I reasonably expect these laws to be enforced?


Like I said I've been doing this for a LONG time and never been fined. I've never even been asked to move along. I've had some cops intrigued by my camera and ask what I'm up to. When I say "taking pictures" they say "have fun".
A comparable example is that it is illegal to pass on the right or use the left lane for non-passing purposes on all US interstates, yet in my entire life I've only heard of one citation for it. (Though I understand they take it more seriously in Europe.)

It was pointed out that re-entering the interstate is the dangerous part, but like I said, this was far from busy. There were several gaps between vehicles of 10 minutes or more while I was waiting for the trooper to pull up/ write the citation. I would not do this in a place that I felt it would endager me or anyone else.

Forgot to add that, yes, he would accept cash, but no, I paid with credit card to the court district in which I was cited.

Allen in Montreal
5-May-2010, 16:40
In every state, to gain more revenue, the interstate police (State Police in our state) are enforcing laws they never bothered to before to raise additional revenue.

Very true,
in Montreal they are ticketing for tires that touch the curb and have put measuring tapes in squad cars to check the distance to fire hydrants and corners.

Motorists are seen as cash cows, nothing more.

But in Montreal, you only pay once you enter a guilty plea or loose while contesting it in traffic court.
To be told you must pay in cash on the spot is a fishing expedition hoping for increased fees and court costs.

The fact he was ticketed for stopping is not at all shocking, but his cash now or straight to jail is barbaric.

AFSmithphoto
5-May-2010, 16:48
Very true,
in Montreal they are ticketing for tires that touch the curb and have put measuring tapes in squad cars to check the distance to fire hydrants and corners.

Motorists are seen as cash cows, nothing more.

Disgusting. Is tourism revenue not considered? I gotta say I'd think twice about visiting a place that's that extreme.

Allen in Montreal
5-May-2010, 17:05
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
In every state, to gain more revenue, the interstate police (State Police in our state) are enforcing laws they never bothered to before to raise additional revenue.

Originally Posted by Allen in Montreal
Very true,
in Montreal they are ticketing for tires that touch the curb and have put measuring tapes in squad cars to check the distance to fire hydrants and corners.
Motorists are seen as cash cows, nothing more.



Disgusting. Is tourism revenue not considered? I gotta say I'd think twice about visiting a place that's that extreme.


Disgusting?

I understand this is a public forum and you want to maintain a certain level of manners and that is polite of you :-), so I will agree on disgusting (but I would say much worse or that to the 100th power!)
Tourists are welcomed with open arms while paying their hotel room, eating in a nice resto, shopping along the boulevard, riding a Bixi public bicycle, but get in your car are you are easy meat!
The signs are very poor here, you are an easy target for the traffic cops.
Our mayor hates cars! Park it and walk or they will ticket you for something, anything!

As Kirk says, these hard times mean digging up every possible ticket revenue generating thing and hammer away at the people.

That said, stopping on the inter state was asking for it.
You would be ticketed for that here too, but you would never be asked to pay cash on the spot.

Brian Ellis
5-May-2010, 17:45
Wisconsin is VERY draconian on their trooper laws. I live in MN and carry my c/card when I venture into 'Sconny' If you are ticketed, you are expected to pay on the spot with cash or credit card. Failure to do so means you GO TO JAIL until funds are secured to pay the fine right then and there. . . .

Where do you get that from? That's certainly not what the Wisconsin Motorists Handbook says. The Handbook says

"If you have received a traffic ticket and simply wish to pay the fine, you may do so by sending a check or money order for the amount of the bond (the fine) to the address that is printed on the ticket. Be sure to include your driver's license number and the citation number on the check or money order." Nothing about paying on the spot or going to jail.

Also note the absence of any reference to paying by cash or credit card, those aren't even options in Wisconsin, and note the absence of any reference to paying the police on the spot. I don't see any distinction between residents and non-residents.

Brian Ellis
5-May-2010, 17:54
Very true,
in Montreal they are ticketing for tires that touch the curb and have put measuring tapes in squad cars to check the distance to fire hydrants and corners.

Motorists are seen as cash cows, nothing more.

But in Montreal, you only pay once you enter a guilty plea or loose while contesting it in traffic court.
To be told you must pay in cash on the spot is a fishing expedition hoping for increased fees and court costs.

The fact he was ticketed for stopping is not at all shocking, but his cash now or straight to jail is barbaric.

I'm not an expert on Wisconsin traffic laws, far from it. But as far as I can tell from some quick reading, Wisconsin doesn't require anything like payment on the spot or go to jail, contrary to what somebody here said. Instead, Wisconsin appears to be like every other State - get a traffic citation, pay the fine later or show up in court. From the Wisconsin Motorist's Handbook:

"If you have received a traffic ticket and simply wish to pay the fine, you may do so by sending a check or money order for the amount of the bond (the fine) to the address that is printed on the ticket. Be sure to include your driver's license number and the citation number on the check or money order."

Nothing about paying on the spot, nothing about going to jail if you don't pay on the spot, nothing about paying in cash, nothing about paying by credit card. I don't see any distinction drawn here between collecting from residents or non-residents.

If someone can cite a Wisconsin statute that establishes a procedure for handling traffic violations under which the police collect a fine on the spot or send the motorist to jail I'll gladly change my mind. But as of now I think the person who said that's what Wisconsin requires was wrong.

It's a shame that the OP violated a law and got caught. He could have chosen to not pay the ticket and gone to trial. However, a defense of "but your honor, it was an emergency stop, if I hadn't stopped I would have missed the photograph" likely wouldn't have worked.

Deane Johnson
5-May-2010, 18:06
But just because a law is on the books does not mean you should expect it be enforced.

I didn't know we could pick and choose which laws we wanted to obey. I learn something new every day on this forum.

sidmac
5-May-2010, 18:19
Did he give you the option of paying in Dairy Products.

Blumine
5-May-2010, 18:30
As a born and raised Chicagoian, my family used to always vacation in Wisconsin (of course Door County). We were always warned to be cautious of the Wisconsin State Police they were known to prey heavily on out of state plates (Illinois Residents in particular).

Sorry to hear about your troubles, though the demand for instant payment does indeed seem somewhat contrary to the law. Even if you already paid I would certainly contact the WSP with a copy of the law and file a complaint against the officer. It may not due any good, but its worth a try.

Blumine

rdenney
5-May-2010, 19:26
The fact that he was fined on-the-spot is most likely because he was not a resident. This is common practice.

Please list the places where it is common practice, so I can avoid going there. It is NOT common practice anywhere I have lived, or anywhere near where I have lived, and that includes at least a third of U.S. states.

Rick "whose relatively few citations have all been no more than a summons to appear, and specifically in writing not a plea of guilty" Denney

Allen in Montreal
5-May-2010, 20:00
.....I'm not an expert on Wisconsin traffic laws, far from it. But as far as I can tell from some quick reading, Wisconsin doesn't require anything like payment on the spot or go to jail, contrary to what somebody here said.
.......

I can't help but wonder,
possible scenario?

Cop stops photog,
photog gets lippy,
Cop invokes rarely used article allowing a demand for instant payment due to potential high flight risk.

Possible?

David Woods
5-May-2010, 20:44
How can 52 states have 52 different laws for road use, or am I miss reading this, In Australia we have the same rules in each, all though some have slight variations, and if an out of state motorist breaks the rule, he is advised of it and cautioned, this excluded interstate truck drivers who must know the road rules in each state, but one certain rule is the police cannot ask a driver to pay a fine on the spot, that is deemed corruption, surley that would apply in the U.S.A as well.

David

sun of sand
5-May-2010, 20:59
Wow. He was obviously looking to pocket the money. Was he in a real car, with an apparently real badge?


n



:confused:



no











noooooo :/

Brian Ellis
5-May-2010, 22:58
I can't help but wonder,
possible scenario?

Cop stops photog,
photog gets lippy,
Cop invokes rarely used article allowing a demand for instant payment due to potential high flight risk.

Possible?

If there is such an article then it's possible. Do you know of such an article? Maybe there is one but if so I haven't run across it in the brief amount of time I spent looking at Wisconsin's procedures for collecting traffic fines.

evan clarke
6-May-2010, 04:35
Yes it was illegal to stop. But just because a law is on the books does not mean you should expect it be enforced. Oral sex is still illegal in several states. Its illegal to have sex with a virgin in Washington D.C. My favourite is Alabama where its illegal to wear a fake moustache that makes people laugh in church.

In Wisconsin its illegal to:

Kiss on a train.

Cut a woman's hair.

Wear red in public if you are a woman.

Should I reasonably expect these laws to be enforced?


Like I said I've been doing this for a LONG time and never been fined. I've never even been asked to move along. I've had some cops intrigued by my camera and ask what I'm up to. When I say "taking pictures" they say "have fun".
A comparable example is that it is illegal to pass on the right or use the left lane for non-passing purposes on all US interstates, yet in my entire life I've only heard of one citation for it. (Though I understand they take it more seriously in Europe.)

It was pointed out that re-entering the interstate is the dangerous part, but like I said, this was far from busy. There were several gaps between vehicles of 10 minutes or more while I was waiting for the trooper to pull up/ write the citation. I would not do this in a place that I felt it would endager me or anyone else.

Forgot to add that, yes, he would accept cash, but no, I paid with credit card to the court district in which I was cited.

Yep, and it's illegal in Wisconsin to exceed the speed limit, EVERYBODY except me travelling on I94 in Milwaukee is going a minimum of 10-15 over but there are no speed traps. We have people doing 60 in a 30 routinely and there seem to be no tickets fot that either. Wisconsin law enforcement has no effect on anything here but they can prey on one easy sucker occasionally. They could balance the Wisconsin budget in one week on I94. You just got picked on...Evan Clarke

evan clarke
6-May-2010, 04:38
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
In every state, to gain more revenue, the interstate police (State Police in our state) are enforcing laws they never bothered to before to raise additional revenue.

Originally Posted by Allen in Montreal
Very true,
in Montreal they are ticketing for tires that touch the curb and have put measuring tapes in squad cars to check the distance to fire hydrants and corners.
Motorists are seen as cash cows, nothing more.




Disgusting?

I understand this is a public forum and you want to maintain a certain level of manners and that is polite of you :-), so I will agree on disgusting (but I would say much worse or that to the 100th power!)
Tourists are welcomed with open arms while paying their hotel room, eating in a nice resto, shopping along the boulevard, riding a Bixi public bicycle, but get in your car are you are easy meat!
The signs are very poor here, you are an easy target for the traffic cops.
Our mayor hates cars! Park it and walk or they will ticket you for something, anything!

As Kirk says, these hard times mean digging up every possible ticket revenue generating thing and hammer away at the people.

That said, stopping on the inter state was asking for it.
You would be ticketed for that here too, but you would never be asked to pay cash on the spot.

And on top of all that, Milwaukee area spent $900 million to build an abortion /baseball stadium under the guise of tourism while the public schools are going broke. Wake up everybody, we need to remove EVERYBODY in government and public employment...every last man and woman, no rotten apples left...Evan Clarke

evan clarke
6-May-2010, 04:40
I didn't know we could pick and choose which laws we wanted to obey. I learn something new every day on this forum.

Look around you everybody is picking and choosing which laws they want to break. You can't breathe without breaking a law:mad: ...EC

rdenney
6-May-2010, 05:26
How can 52 states have 52 different laws for road use, or am I miss reading this, In Australia we have the same rules in each, all though some have slight variations, and if an out of state motorist breaks the rule, he is advised of it and cautioned, this excluded interstate truck drivers who must know the road rules in each state, but one certain rule is the police cannot ask a driver to pay a fine on the spot, that is deemed corruption, surley that would apply in the U.S.A as well.

David

52 states? Did I not get the memo?

The states are more independent than are provinces in 'Stralia. It's built into our national psyche. We have no national police, and really like it that way.

Most states' traffic laws derive quite directly from the Uniform Vehicle Code, and they are all required to comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. They succeed with those uniformity intentions with varying success, but generally speaking people drive coast to coast and do not see markedly different traffic control or enforcement practices.

But it's not just states that differ in their enforcement practices, but each enforcement jurisdiction. Some states limit enforcement jurisdiction on Interstate highways to the state police, but other states allow all agencies, including county sheriffs and city police, to provide enforcement within their boundaries.

And, Evan, if you think everyone in government should be fired right now, then be prepared to discover the legitimates roles of government even in the Constitution. Sometimes, government is conspicuous by its absence. For example, those who build roads, handle our waste, and clean our drinking water are government employees, and I don't know even the most ardent conservatives who don't include those basic services under the General Welfare clause. The problem is that often basic services are set aside in favor of luxuries we cannot afford, but eliminating government won't solve that problem. Anarchy is not the answer.

Rick "a government employee who believes in limited government" Denney

evan clarke
6-May-2010, 05:36
52 states? Did I not get the memo?

The states are more independent than are provinces in 'Stralia. It's built into our national psyche. We have no national police, and really like it that way.

Most states' traffic laws derive quite directly from the Uniform Vehicle Code, and they are all required to comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. They succeed with those uniformity intentions with varying success, but generally speaking people drive coast to coast and do not see markedly different traffic control or enforcement practices.

But it's not just states that differ in their enforcement practices, but each enforcement jurisdiction. Some states limit enforcement jurisdiction on Interstate highways to the state police, but other states allow all agencies, including county sheriffs and city police, to provide enforcement within their boundaries.

And, Evan, if you think everyone in government should be fired right now, then be prepared to discover the legitimates roles of government even in the Constitution. Sometimes, government is conspicuous by its absence. For example, those who build roads, handle our waste, and clean our drinking water are government employees, and I don't know even the most ardent conservatives who don't include those basic services under the General Welfare clause. The problem is that often basic services are set aside in favor of luxuries we cannot afford, but eliminating government won't solve that problem. Anarchy is not the answer.

Rick "a government employee who believes in limited government" Denney

The people who build the roads here in Wisconsin are contractors, not government employees. With the recent news that the stadium is going to require 2 to 3 more years to pay off it's interesting that the streets and roads in Milwaukee county which are maintained by government employees are a shambles. Most waste removal is done by private contractors. I'm not promoting anarchy, just replacement of them all with untouched, new people....EC

rdenney
6-May-2010, 06:36
The people who build the roads here in Wisconsin are contractors, not government employees. With the recent news that the stadium is going to require 2 to 3 more years to pay off it's interesting that the streets and roads in Milwaukee county which are maintained by government employees are a shambles. Most waste removal is done by private contractors. I'm not promoting anarchy, just replacement of them all with untouched, new people....EC

Do you think that private contractors are not also subject to the human condition? Do you think they are a different species than those who work for government, or that they went to different schools and learned different things? I spent two years in academic research, five years in state government, seven years in local government, 17 (successful) years in the private sector, and now I'm back in government at the federal level. I'm not speaking theoretically.

Where are you going to get these untouched, new people? Do you think an engineer who knows how to build a road sprouts out of the ground fully formed, complete with experience? I bet that if you actually spent time with the people about whom you complain, you might discover a wealth of capability that has be constrained externally, not that is incompetent internally. Every profession has its incompetents, but you are overstating the case by orders of magnitude.

Contractors build the roads, but they don't operate or maintain them. And they don't write the standards or specifications for how those roads are built, and they don't sit in front of public groups accepting abuse in discussions of where those roads will go. There is a lot more to roads than pouring concrete, and you have to decide at each stage who can do it most responsively to the will of the people. As I said, if you carry out your plan, you will discover two things: 1.) corruption lives at least as happily in the private sector as in the public sector, and 2.) the things you complain about being done poorly now may not be done at all, or may be done out of public view. For example, I think you'd find that most farmers would still be driving on dirt roads to bring their produce to market, for the same reason that most of them can't get decent high-speed Internet service (as an example of an entirely private infrastructure).

There is a law that I have observed over the decades. Government employees receive the blame for the dissatisfaction people feel about whatever, and so in bad times the size of government is reduced, often with little thought to what the proper roles of government should be. Then, when government grows in good times, new programs are added rather than improving old ones. When government shrinks, all programs are reduced across the board. This process contributes to reduced effectiveness over time. This is not the fault of government employees, who often have the least voice in these political decisions. It is an outgrowth of our system, which is the worst imaginable system (except for all the rest). The answer isn't to fire everyone and start over, but rather to reassess the role of government and set new priorities. That is necessarily a political process.

Private roads (and there are a few big ones, including one that I drive on regularly and pay dearly to do so) are indeed often well-run and well-maintained. But they often do not go where they need to go to build the most effective network, because the owners are interested in a given road's return on investment, not in the overall network. We actually have tried this experiment already for the first 140 years of U.S. history, and the people demanded more accountability for where and how roads were being built. That is what led to the creation of state highway bureaus, which are now state departments of transportation, often with the goal of providing more even service across the population. These were not created by those interested in big government, or during a time of rampant government growth. They were created because the people demanded public accountability and more equitable outcomes.

By the way, when I said removing waste, I wasn't talking about garbage collection. That is indeed a proprietary function. I was talking about sewage. I'm all ears for a plan on how to build an effective sewerage in any big city without public accountability. At the time of the founders, sewage was thrown in the street.

Rick "anarchy is not the answer" Denney

Colleen K
6-May-2010, 07:08
As a born and raised Chicagoian, my family used to always vacation in Wisconsin (of course Door County). We were always warned to be cautious of the Wisconsin State Police they were known to prey heavily on out of state plates (Illinois Residents in particular).


Blumine

That's funny because driving the interstates in Wisconsin, I very rarely pass a car with Illinois plates-it's always the other way around in that they fly by me about 10-20 mph faster, yet they always claim they are being picked on when stopped for speeding.:)
A friend of mine was stopped in a very well known speed trap several years ago and was given the option of paying the fine on the spot so it's not just out of state plates that get that treatment.
Colleen

AFSmithphoto
6-May-2010, 07:26
That's funny because driving the interstates in Wisconsin, I very rarely pass a car with Illinois plates-it's always the other way around in that they fly by me about 10-20 mph faster, yet they always claim they are being picked on when stopped for speeding.:)
A friend of mine was stopped in a very well known speed trap several years ago and was given the option of paying the fine on the spot so it's not just out of state plates that get that treatment.
Colleen


I wasn't given the OPTION of paying on the spot, I was threatened with jail if I didn't. And no I didn't "get lippy" that never helps the situation. According to the trooper it is standard practice for out of state plates in the magisterial district I happened to be in by decree of the judge. (That's right, THE judge, not the head judge, THE judge.) It is not a rare law he decided to invoke because he didn't like me or what I was doing, as it is printed in plain enlglish on the back of the citation.

So, to answer a couple of other questions that were asked: Not only do driving laws shift from state to state, within certain states they can shift from district to district as well. Also, its not a Wisconsin-wide law, which is why it is not in the driver's manual, however the fact that it exists in contradiction to the manaul may give me something to work with, so thanks for bringing that to my attention Brian.

Toyon
6-May-2010, 07:42
Definitely illegal, and if you check the casualty statistics you'll find that the side of an interstate is a very hazardous place to be. Cops hate to stop there, which may partially explain how pissed off he was.

Brian Ellis
6-May-2010, 08:36
The people who build the roads here in Wisconsin are contractors, not government employees. With the recent news that the stadium is going to require 2 to 3 more years to pay off it's interesting that the streets and roads in Milwaukee county which are maintained by government employees are a shambles. Most waste removal is done by private contractors. I'm not promoting anarchy, just replacement of them all with untouched, new people....EC

Er, uh Evan. Who do you think hires and pays those contractors? Or are you under the impression that contractors build those roads for free, kind of like their contribution to United Way maybe?

Nathan Potter
6-May-2010, 08:49
You can't let such incidents bother you. If you're seriously doing photography in public places you're going to be harassed by someone occasionally. Photography is intrusive by nature. I go where ever I want and take the consequences, generally being nice and pleasant to the harassee, police or private individual. Never yet been stopped from photographing along an interstate but I see often signs that say "no stopping except for emergency" but generally they can be safely ignored.

To the original poster - Was this guy really a cop? In TX. law enforcement people have serious drug interdiction tasks so have little time for such nonsensical activities as harassing roadside photographers, under any circumstances.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

evan clarke
6-May-2010, 09:37
Er, uh Evan. Who do you think hires and pays those contractors? Or are you under the impression that contractors build those roads for free, kind of like their contribution to United Way maybe?
"Who do you think hires and pays those contractors?" The people we should cycle back into the private workforce!
My reference is to the fact that contractors and workers aren't government employees. Maybe government is better in every other town besides Milwaukee, but here it's not too hot. Nobody is giving up pensions or medical benefits in government here either.. Who else in the workforce gets a pension? I'll tell you what, every occupant of the USA should have to do 5 or 6 hours of community service instead of paying paper shufflers to operate government. I have to earn money by making and selling things, no guaranteed pay, no pension. I don't work well, I get no money, I can't deficit spend. I make efforts to contact various branches of government here and get either automated email or have to deal with voice messages, people who are hired to be at a desk are "away from my desk"

evan clarke
6-May-2010, 09:46
As a society, we will spend HALf of every single dollar generated on government. My wife and I should have a full time 24 hour servant for that money. Instead, kids can't read, cops can't create any order, food is not safe, oil companies don't have safety equipment at their drillheads, coroporate banks a robbing us, Toyotas aren't safe, terrorism is a daily fear, water supplies aren't safe, the power grid is broken, social security will fail( I have paid into this thing for 47 years and may not get it), there's a year of gdp in Federal debt. I didn't spend any of that money, elected officials, and government employees are constantly over budget they spent it. I believe every government employee is fulfilling his or her function to the best of their ability, it just doesn't work..we could get all of this for free...Evan

evan clarke
6-May-2010, 09:50
I apologize to everybody for such a rant but as I get old I am afraid I have trusted government in general and have made a life mistake, again, I apologize...Evan Clarke

rdenney
6-May-2010, 09:53
Who else in the workforce gets a pension?

Not me! I get the opportunity to contribute to a 401K, with a small match from my employer, just like I had in the private sector. And, when moving into this jjob, I took a cut in pay, too.

A pension isn't so hot if the salary on which it is based isn't particularly competitive.

I think you need to go make some friends who are government workers. You might find that they are more like you than you imagine. There are loafers in every situation, public or private. There are also many who take their work seriously and do their best, often in adverse circumstances.

And volunteers? Please. I'm an engineer, licensed in five states. The work I do should be compensated. It definitely cannot be done as a part-time hobby.

You choose to be self-employed, by the way. And you reap the benefits of that choice in terms of profits and flexibility and doing what you want. Others make different choices. It's not a moral question.

Rick "whose loafing on LPPF is triply compensated by many extra unpaid hours" Denney

rdenney
6-May-2010, 10:00
As a society, we will spend HALf of every single dollar generated on government. My wife and I should have a full time 24 hour servant for that money. Instead, kids can't read, cops can't create any order, food is not safe, oil companies don't have safety equipment at their drillheads, coroporate banks a robbing us, Toyotas aren't safe, terrorism is a daily fear, water supplies aren't safe, the power grid is broken, social security will fail( I have paid into this thing for 47 years and may not get it), there's a year of gdp in Federal debt. I didn't spend any of that money, elected officials, and government employees are constantly over budget they spent it. I believe every government employee is fulfilling his or her function to the best of their ability, it just doesn't work..we could get all of this for free...Evan

I think you are demonstrating my point.

If you want to assert that government attempts too much (including the implicit promise to make people happy), and undertakes projects that it shouldn't, potentially to our ruin, then you and I would find much to agree about.

But that's not the same thing as suggesting that we fire all government employees and start over. Don't you think there's a middle ground in there somewhere? Can't we try to reestablish priorities based on what government really should do?

By the way, very little of what we do now we used to do. It would be useful to go back and see what it was like before we did. Were people happier? Were we more prosperous? Government in the U.S. is reluctant to undertake projects, for the most part. When they do, it's because they were ordered to by those whom the people elect. The result is that some of what people wanted gets done passably. A little gets done excellently. Some gets done poorly, and some doesn't get done at all. For many functions, the alternatives are no better, and ultimately no less costly.

Hint: Government doesn't even promise to do much of what's on your list. And following your plan, none of it would even be attempted.

Hint 2: Most people live longer and have a much better standard of living than they did during most periods in the past, even during this current recession. Look out the window! Birds are singing, the Sun is shining! Go expose some film!

Rick "no apology necessary" Denney

Vaughn
6-May-2010, 11:07
I got pulled over last night at 11:30. My crime...pulling all the way to (but not over) the white line on the right as the he sped past me in the left lane 25 mph over the speed limit (I had passed him a minute earlier as he was parked along side the road -- I know his speed because there are radar-controlled signs giving your speed along the highway where he passed me).

He also said my registration tag was out-of-date (more BS -- it is due this month, but still current).

He told me I was weaving, I told him I was not, he told me again I was weaving, and I knew better to argue anymore about it. He asked to see my license (but not car registration -- which told me he knew he was BS'ing). Then he sent me on my way.

Granted, he was just looking for any reason to pull people over to check for drunk drivers. But I had two of my boys with me, and they got to experience the fact that cops lie (or as they say in court, have serious credibility issues) -- a good life lesson, I suppose.

Vaughn

bobwysiwyg
6-May-2010, 11:49
Never yet been stopped from photographing along an interstate but I see often signs that say "no stopping except for emergency" but generally they can be safely ignored.

Strikes me as arrogant coupled with a complete disregard for the safety of others.

Bob Salomon
6-May-2010, 12:25
My wife and I got up early one morning to drive to Rust in Austria. On the way there we drove to the top of a hill, just outside Rust, to visit a Roman marble quarry. After we saw all that was to be seen we got back in our car and started to drive to the bottom of the hill (small mountain?) and my wife, in the passanger seat, was bust assembling the maps and negleted to put on her seat belt. Halfway down the slope we passed a policeman standing on the edge of the road with a radar gun and a radio. A little further down the hill another office stepped out of the woods and flagged me down. Since his English was not very good he told us to wait and went back into the woods and came out with his Lieutenant - whose English was much better then my German. He explained that we were stopped because my wife was not wearing her seat belt. An offense in Austria that was then punishable by an immediate payment of quite a few Austrian Schillings - on the spot.
However he wanted us to enjoy our stay in Austria and after a nice chat about seat belt lawas in the USA and the lack of it being an offense that you could be stopped for in NJ he wished us a nice visit, recommended where some of the better sites were in Rust, warned my wife to Buckle Up and let us go on with no fine.

Next time maybe you want to visit Austria rather then Wisconsin.

bvstaples
6-May-2010, 12:46
Please list the places where it is common practice, so I can avoid going there. It is NOT common practice anywhere I have lived, or anywhere near where I have lived, and that includes at least a third of U.S. states.

Baja, Mexico...though the Federales have taken a back seat to the drug cartel, so you're more likely to get shot than to get ripped off.

rdenney
6-May-2010, 12:57
Baja, Mexico...though the Federales have taken a back seat to the drug cartel, so you're more likely to get shot than to get ripped off.

Got it!

Rick "avoiding Baja" Denney

AFSmithphoto
6-May-2010, 16:03
My wife and I got up early one morning to drive to Rust in Austria. On the way there we drove to the top of a hill, just outside Rust, to visit a Roman marble quarry. After we saw all that was to be seen we got back in our car and started to drive to the bottom of the hill (small mountain?) and my wife, in the passanger seat, was bust assembling the maps and negleted to put on her seat belt. Halfway down the slope we passed a policeman standing on the edge of the road with a radar gun and a radio. A little further down the hill another office stepped out of the woods and flagged me down. Since his English was not very good he told us to wait and went back into the woods and came out with his Lieutenant - whose English was much better then my German. He explained that we were stopped because my wife was not wearing her seat belt. An offense in Austria that was then punishable by an immediate payment of quite a few Austrian Schillings - on the spot.
However he wanted us to enjoy our stay in Austria and after a nice chat about seat belt lawas in the USA and the lack of it being an offense that you could be stopped for in NJ he wished us a nice visit, recommended where some of the better sites were in Rust, warned my wife to Buckle Up and let us go on with no fine.

Next time maybe you want to visit Austria rather then Wisconsin.

I can think of a number of reasons Austria would be preferable.

Drew Wiley
6-May-2010, 16:16
I got pulled over once in the middle of Nevada for running a stoplight in a county which
doesn't even have a stoplight. And I was over fifty miles from an intersection. Court
was open two days a month. You would have drive out, make a plea, and then return
six month later for the actual hearing. The worst place I have ever gone through is
Panguitch Utah. The Highway Patrolman stop all cars with out of state plates coming down from Bryce and tickets them. So I would always pause around the corner until he caught someone else first before proceeding. And once I tried slipping through town late at night when I knew he was off duty, but the sheriff and his buddy pulled me over, made it clear that no one from Calif was welcome, and searched through all my stuff. I figure my crime was that I only have one wife and not four.

Allen in Montreal
7-May-2010, 02:40
My wife and I got up early one morning to drive to Rust in Austria. .......we were stopped because my wife was not wearing her seat belt. An offense in Austria that was then punishable by an immediate payment of quite a few Austrian Schillings - on the spot.
However he wanted us to enjoy our stay in Austria ...... he wished us a nice visit, recommended where some of the better sites were in Rust, warned my wife to Buckle Up and let us go on with no fine.......

Sounds like Montreal cops 10 years ago.
Sounds nothing like the Montreal cops of today! :mad:

Allen in Montreal
7-May-2010, 02:54
......

He told me I was weaving, I told him I was not, he told me again I was weaving, and I knew better to argue anymore about it. He asked to see my license (but not car registration -- which told me he knew he was BS'ing). Then he sent me on my way.

Granted, he was just looking for any reason to pull people over to check for drunk drivers.........

Vaughn

I now roll video out my front window at all times.

So far it has saved me 200.00 and 3 demerit pts. It is sad that there is a need to film yourself as you drive as a self defense move against the police, but it has come to that. Police in Montreal have quotas and their interpretation of a moving offense varies depending on how close they are to their quota.

God I miss the old police chief who was more concerned with crime than ticket revenue. The current chief has set 3 consecutive record years of ticket revenue for the city hall. When my daughter was attacked by a loose German Shepherd, the cops could only come the next day to take a report, but when I drove in to town, I found 9 cars from the station near my home working a speed trap at the entrance to the highway.

Michael_4514
7-May-2010, 03:11
Traffic citations of this kind are ordinarily summary offenses, infractions which do not rise to the level of a misdemeanor crime. People are not typically arrested or sent to jail for infractions. The circumstances of the stop make abundantly clear that this was not a serious offense ("I'm guilty, here's my $277.78"/"Off you go then; have a nice day!")

It's an abuse of the American jurisprudence system and abhorrent to this citizen's sense of fairness and decency that the threat of jail is used to strong-arm people into pleading guilty on the spot so that they remain free, versus the choice of going to jail to exercise the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence. Particularly when we're discussing what's essentially a parking ticket.

It bothers me more that while some have not only accepted this extra-constitution rights grab with nary a whimper, others seek to blame the victim.

(And, no, "extra-Constitutional" does not mean "more" constitutional.)

Ivan, I will see your outrage and up you one. Just a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court, our supposed protector of constitutional rights, ruled that the police had the right to arrest and hold a woman for not wearing a seat belt, even though the maximum penalty for the offense, if proven guilty, was a small fine. In other words, the police, in the act of enforcing the law, could punish the woman more than she could be punished by the courts for breaking the law.

This is not the place for a long rant about the constitution, the Supreme Court, politics or the media, and it suffices it to say that we have a real crisis on our hands. Just look at what is going on in Arizona.

Peter De Smidt
7-May-2010, 08:24
Point 1: The law exists to protect citizens and promote their welfare, and we take on some duties in exchange for this. When laws don't protect or promote welfare, then there is no moral imperative to obey them, and in some cases there's a moral imperative to violate them. The OP cited a number of ridiculous and/or immoral laws.

Point 2: It's not true that we should never endanger other people or ourselves. After all, we do this every time we drive a car, or shoot a gun, or build a bridge, or climb a mountain, or open a fast food restaurant....

Point 3: Law enforcement officers should enforce the law in a way that protects people and promotes welfare, and they should curtail individual liberty only in the service of those ends. So if stopping and taking pictures put someone in unacceptable danger, then the person doing so should be warned against doing it, or if the danger is great enough, then they should be fined or incarcerated. In this case, the danger presented was extremely small, and so at the worst the officer should have issued a warning.

Point 4: Corruption is the number one danger with law enforcement. Making people pay on the spot is a very bad idea, and threatening them with incarceration if they don't pay immediately certainly violates the spirit of due process.

8x10 user
7-May-2010, 09:00
I very much agree with Peters points.

I have never heard about a law enforcement officer requiring payment to be on the spot. Did the OP receive a written ticket as well? If not I think the officer might be running a scam.

From what I hear, in my small Wisconsin town the police officers make up most of their quotas by harassing high schoolers for small things like having too many people in the car.

AFSmithphoto
7-May-2010, 09:23
Point 1: The law exists to protect citizens and promote their welfare, and we take on some duties in exchange for this. When laws don't protect or promote welfare, then there is no moral imperative to obey them, and in some cases there's a moral imperative to violate them. The OP cited a number of ridiculous and/or immoral laws.

Point 2: It's not true that we should never endanger other people or ourselves. After all, we do this every time we drive a car, or shoot a gun, or build a bridge, or climb a mountain, or open a fast food restaurant....

Point 3: Law enforcement officers should enforce the law in a way that protects people and promotes welfare, and they should curtail individual liberty only in the service of those ends. So if stopping and taking pictures put someone in unacceptable danger, then the person doing so should be warned against doing it, or if the danger is great enough, then they should be fined or incarcerated. In this case, the danger presented was extremely small, and so at the worst the officer should have issued a warning.

Point 4: Corruption is the number one danger with law enforcement. Making people pay on the spot is a very bad idea, and threatening them with incarceration if they don't pay immediately certainly violates the spirit of due process.

Well said Peter. I find it intresting that so many people have claimed I've endagered others by stopping on the side of the interstate as if driving down an interstate includes ZERO risks. I drove through TWELVE states (Three of them twice) for no good reason other than I wanted to. That put quite a few more people at risk than stopping where I did. (A few miles from an exit where I couldn't find a place to eat breakfast that was open before 10)

And yes, I did recieve a paper ticket and checked with my bank to insure that my payment went to the court district listed.

sanking
7-May-2010, 09:34
I have never heard about a law enforcement officer requiring payment to be on the spot.



Happens often in Mexico!!

Sandy King

IanG
7-May-2010, 09:35
Happens often in Mexico!!

Sandy King


And in Turkey :D

Ian

rdenney
7-May-2010, 09:52
Happens often in Mexico!!

Sandy King

Yup. I read a book some years ago about a couple of guys who set out to set the south-to-north driving record--from Tierra del Fuego to Point Barrow, or whatever. The only place they did not drive was just sound of Panama, where there is no road access. They drove through areas of Shining Path unrest, and through many desperately poor countries. But they said the greatest local-level corruption they saw anywhere, and that presented the greatest risk, was in Mexico. Mexico is a poster child for why we have to be ever vigilant about corruption in local law enforcement. Like many petty crimes, it's easy to ignore and even rationalize, but little corruption eventually leads to big corruption.

There was a well-known speed trap in Texas, on I-35 just north of San Antonio. The town of Selma enforced vigorously, and eventually moved their city hall to the freeway frontage to more conveniently extort funds from people driving through on the interstate. But they nailed one politician too many, and the Texas legislature put an end to it by setting an upper limit on the percentage of a local government's budget that can come from enforcement activity, as part of the municipal incorporation laws. Selma moved their city hall back to the actual town, and the building was, last I looked a few years ago, the City Hall Bar, and had a 40's police car decorating its front lawn. When enforcement becomes unreasonable, citizens push back.

Many of the cases presented in this thread, had they happened to me, would have resulted in a letter to the state attorney general. Those guys are elected--they pay attention to those letters if they start showing a trend.

Rick "thinking a thread on LFPF does not constitute push-back" Denney

Brian Ellis
7-May-2010, 09:58
Point 1: The law exists to protect citizens and promote their welfare, and we take on some duties in exchange for this. When laws don't protect or promote welfare, then there is no moral imperative to obey them, and in some cases there's a moral imperative to violate them. The OP cited a number of ridiculous and/or immoral laws.

Point 2: It's not true that we should never endanger other people or ourselves. After all, we do this every time we drive a car, or shoot a gun, or build a bridge, or climb a mountain, or open a fast food restaurant....

Point 3: Law enforcement officers should enforce the law in a way that protects people and promotes welfare, and they should curtail individual liberty only in the service of those ends. So if stopping and taking pictures put someone in unacceptable danger, then the person doing so should be warned against doing it, or if the danger is great enough, then they should be fined or incarcerated. In this case, the danger presented was extremely small, and so at the worst the officer should have issued a warning.

Point 4: Corruption is the number one danger with law enforcement. Making people pay on the spot is a very bad idea, and threatening them with incarceration if they don't pay immediately certainly violates the spirit of due process.

1. Ridiculous in your mind, not necessarily ridiculous in the minds of others. And I seriously doubt that some of these things are laws anyhow. Hopefully you don't think that everything you read on the internet is true just because it's on the internet.

2. Nobody has ever said that everything we do should be unlawful because it presents a risk so your examples are irrelevant. In general any time a law is enacted that prevents us from doing something there's a balancing act going on between individual rights and the rights of others. In the OP's case, the relevant legislators thought the "right" to stop on the shoulder of an interstate just because the person stopping feels like doing so were outweighed by the dangers involved to the person stopping and to others. Seems o.k. to me but even if I disagreed I couldn't say that idea is totally ridiculous. I don't know how many times I've read of a policeman or a motorist being killed after getting out of a car on the shoulder of a busy road but it's a lot.

3. Fortunately we don't follow your notions of what the police should and shouldn't do. I can just imagine how you'd like it if each individual policeman was given the power to decide what risks were acceptable and which were unacceptable and whether a warning or a ticket or incarceration was to be the appropriate penalty.

4. I agree.

AFSmithphoto
7-May-2010, 10:25
I did send a letter to the Governor's Office and the board of tourism, I did not consider the Attorney General. I think I'll do that. Thanks for the tip.

AFSmithphoto
7-May-2010, 10:46
3. Fortunately we don't follow your notions of what the police should and shouldn't do. I can just imagine how you'd like it if each individual policeman was given the power to decide what risks were acceptable and which were unacceptable and whether a warning or a ticket or incarceration was to be the appropriate penalty.



Who is this "we" you speak of? Police officers ARE allowed to chose between giving you a ticket and a warning. Its is SOLEY and explicitly at their discretion.
I was once ticketed for speeding in New Jersey and the officer was very clear with me that he was going to write me up for a lesser offence because he felt the fine for speeding was too high. I didn't fight him on it.
Every driver's handbook I've ever read states that you can be pulled over for speeding, even if you are just moving with traffic. Whoever the officer on the spot chooses to give the fine to, gets it.
In the suburbs of Philly (my neck of the woods) when police get a noise complaint about a party and find underage drinkers, people go to jail. In Philadelphia itself, they're just asked to keep it down. Its not because the laws are any different, its because Phily cops have much bigger problems to deal with, and booking kids for drinking uses up valuable man power that would be better used to keep people from hurting eachother.
Police officers are far from letter-of-the-law enforcing robots.

BrianShaw
7-May-2010, 10:57
Police officers are far from letter-of-the-law enforcing robots.

I think of this every time I recall how the CA Highway Patrol stopped to ask why were (many years ago) parked on the side of the freeway and there was no apparent emergency. He gave us a warning even after we told him that we stopped to make sure we remembered to unload the rifle. :eek:

Jim Ewins
7-May-2010, 19:02
There is a law against anything you may wish to do - a few are good laws.

pkphotog
7-May-2010, 20:30
Every driver's handbook I've ever read states that you can be pulled over for speeding, even if you are just moving with traffic. Whoever the officer on the spot chooses to give the fine to, gets it.

I've seen that happen. One summer I was driving home from the Rockies doing 105 km/hr and on one stretch of the highway a dozen cars passed me like I was standing still. They must have been going 130 or 140km/h. About 5 kilometers later I saw every one of those cars pulled over in a radar trap and five RCMP officers were busy writing tickets,

Michael_4514
8-May-2010, 03:48
I wasn't given the OPTION of paying on the spot, I was threatened with jail if I didn't. And no I didn't "get lippy" that never helps the situation. According to the trooper it is standard practice for out of state plates in the magisterial district I happened to be in by decree of the judge. (That's right, THE judge, not the head judge, THE judge.) It is not a rare law he decided to invoke because he didn't like me or what I was doing, as it is printed in plain enlglish on the back of the citation.

So, to answer a couple of other questions that were asked: Not only do driving laws shift from state to state, within certain states they can shift from district to district as well. Also, its not a Wisconsin-wide law, which is why it is not in the driver's manual, however the fact that it exists in contradiction to the manaul may give me something to work with, so thanks for bringing that to my attention Brian.

I suspect that the practice is you can either pay the fine or post bond, which happens to be the exact same amount as the fine. If you can't or won't) post the bond, then you will indeed be arrested.

And yes, the amount of bond and the procedures concerning it, are to a large extent set by individual municipalities. A municipal judge, while the lowest member of the judicial totem pole, can be a very effective source of revenue for small towns.

Almost 40 years ago, while in college, my friend and I were pulled over in rural Wisconsin for speeding. The bond, or fine, was more money than the two of us had on hand. The sheriff had to drag us around while we made phone calls and eventually found somebody who could arrange to have the money sent. It took several hours, and at the end of it, the sheriff admitted that if he had known it was going to be such a hassle (for him), he never would have stopped us.

Michael_4514
8-May-2010, 03:58
Strikes me as arrogant coupled with a complete disregard for the safety of others.

I have to credit people with having more sense than signs. On many stretches of interstate it is perfectly safe to pull over and stop.

Ivan J. Eberle
8-May-2010, 05:05
"Selective enforcement" has been used as a successful defense. More likely, it becomes the basis of an appeal (likely that these cases are a slam dunk at the local magistrate's office).

Discriminatory enforcement targeting only out-of-state residents would be scandalous enough that surely somebody like AAA or the NY Times would be interested in publishing warnings, if a pattern were clear? If indeed such outrageous behavior by Wisc mounties has been going for a period of time, there must already be webpages compiling the specific complaints?

Preston
8-May-2010, 09:31
On many stretches of interstate it is perfectly safe to pull over and stop.

Only in a 'perfect' world. While one can make their own choices, we cannot govern the actions of others.

I am a retired fire fighter, and I have scraped many people off of the pavement, or cut them out of mangled vehicles. In many cases, the victim's fate was in the hands of another.

The key, I firmly believe, is to don't take anything for granted, maintain situational awareness, and drive defensively. Here's a video that I found very sobering...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=-qvXbIenivk

Be safe, everyone.

--P

John Jarosz
8-May-2010, 10:47
It's not a fine. It's a tax. Just like speeding. In almost all states (although Illinois is the worst), If you are convicted of speeding they have weasel words that allow the charges to not appear on your driving record so your insurance does not increase. Even if you are going over 100mph. Stat ovenrments have no interest in safety or anything else that does not increase their revenue stream. Once you think of it as a tax, you'll feel more relaxed about this.
When i was a kid, one of the most recurring headlines in the newspapers was about the cops breaking up gambling rings. Now the states are the chief purveyors of gambling. It's all about the money.....

But you did break the law........

Peter De Smidt
8-May-2010, 12:09
But you did break the law........

As do 90% of Americans when they go out driving. If you're from near Chicago, the same number probably do so by 10 mph or more.

al olson
9-May-2010, 17:05
Hello to all,
. . .
He proceeded to cite us for "stopping for non-emergency purposes" and threatened to take us to jail if we did not pay on the spot due to our out of state plates. He claimed this is standard procedure in EVERY state, yet I have done this HUNDREDS of times in nearly every state in the US, on interstates and off, and yet I have never received or even heard of anyone receiving a citation. Has this fate ever befallen anyone here? Were you in Wisconsin?
. . .

Thank you for the update. I am glad to hear that things have not much changed in Wisconsin over the past 50 years or so.

I hope the officer explained to you that he was really doing you a favor. You were committing the more serious offense of driving with out-of-state plates. The reduced charges of "stopping for non-emergency purposes" were far more favorable in your case.

In 1958 my parents moved to the Twin Cities. I was in college at the time so my time spent in the area was limited to summer vacations. Wisconsin at that time had a reputation for issuing speeding tickets for a violation only one or two mph over the speed limit. There were Minnesotans who refused to visit Wisconsin on principle.

Later, when I was living on the east coast and driving through Wisconsin for a visit I was very careful to keep the speedometer a needle width below the speed limit. Driving through Wisconsin Dells on US12 there would be many cars pulled over, mostly out of state.

You may relate to this old story:

Three men, one from Iowa, one from Wisconsin, and one from Minnesota were walking down the beach when they spotted a bottle bobbing around in the surf. They recovered the bottle and as they rubbed it, out popped a Genie.

The Genie said, "Since the three of you together found this bottle, I can only give each of you one wish."

The Iowan went first. He said, "I love my state of Iowa. Unfortunately, the last several years have been bad for agriculture. My wish is that everyone in Iowa will have a great harvest this year."

The Genie blinked twice and said, "Your wish has been granted."

Next the man from Wisconsin spoke up. He said, "My state is a beautiful state. We Wisconsinites always keep it groomed and pristine. However, all of these tourists from outside Wisconsin clog our roads, trash our country side, and they are rude and demanding. My wish is for a 200 foot wall all around our borders to keep these people out."

The Genie blinked twice and said, "Your wish has been granted."

Next the Minnesotan speaks up. "Tell me more about this wall," he says to the Genie. "Is it strong?"

"Oh yes," says the Genie, "it is built out of reinforced concrete."

"Is it thick?" asks the Minnesotan.

"Oh yes," answers the Genie, "it is 150 feet thick at the base and fifty feet thick at the top."

"Fill it with water."

keith english
11-May-2010, 06:40
My wife is from Wisconsin but we live in Gerogia most of the year. We drive there all the time with Georgia plates and I have yet to be pulled over. May be cause we obey the driving laws. Now them doggone people from Chicago are a different story. Unless, of course, they are from the Midwest large format asylum.

bobwysiwyg
20-May-2010, 09:00
Please list the places where it is common practice, so I can avoid going there. It is NOT common practice anywhere I have lived, or anywhere near where I have lived, and that includes at least a third of U.S. states.

Rick "whose relatively few citations have all been no more than a summons to appear, and specifically in writing not a plea of guilty" Denney

From Michigan statutes:


Question: I was told recently that if you are from out of state and you are pulled over for speeding in Michigan, you must either pay $100 cash immediately or give up your driver's license. Is this correct?

Answer: MCL 257.749(1) states in part "When a person who is not a resident of this state is stopped for a civil infraction...the police officer making the stop shall take that person's driver's license as security for the nonresident's appearance in court and satisfaction of any order which may be issued under section 907 and shall issue to that person a citation as provided in sections 727c and 742."

MCL 257.749(2) states "In lieu of the officer's taking of the license under subsection (1) or before appearance in court, the person stopped may recognize to the officer or to the court for his or her appearance by leaving with the officer or court a guaranteed appearance certificate or a sum of money not to exceed $100.00."

Ivan J. Eberle
20-May-2010, 10:44
Wow. Betting they have a nice conviction rate on those infractions by out of state residents using this strong arm tactic. License confiscation for a civil infraction seems downright uncivil to me. Potential for unequal application of the law is glaringly obvious. Wondering if the constitutionality of this bullshit statute has ever been challenged?

In many jurisdictions the OP's citation wouldn't amount to a moving violation but a parking violation. Having one's license revoked versus the threat of going to jail are like comparing apples and giraffes.

Anyway, nice reminder to dig out that little card from AAA membership packet to see whether it might qualify as a guaranteed appearance certificate.

Rick Moore
20-May-2010, 11:10
From Michigan statutes:

This is no different in Illinois. Even if you are an Illinois resident, when you receive a moving violation citation, you must either give the police officer your license, a bond card, or a cash bond. I know from experience, if you can't do this, you are taken to the local police station to wait until someone comes with your license or money to bail you out. This is "per offense" so if you've done multiple things wrong, your license only covers the first offense and you need a bond card or some cash. The ticket is your license until your court date, when they give you back your license. The ticket is not good for bond, so getting a second ticket while driving on one means you better have that bond card or some money.

I know this because I once spent a few hours in the Palos Heights, IL police station waiting for my wife to get home so I could get her on the phone to come bail me out. I had forgotten my wallet, so I had neither license or money on hand. At that time (late 1970's), it had to be cash, not plastic, so my wife, who did not have enough cash, had to wake her mother in the middle of the night to borrow money to bail me out. My mother-in-law (God rest her soul) provided the money, but she did remind me of this from time to time when I was getting too cocky.


--
Rick

Richard M. Coda
20-May-2010, 11:18
You should report this to Discarted
http://discarted.wordpress.com/

Eric Woodbury
20-May-2010, 11:25
True enough. You can't stop on an interstate except for emergency. I learned this the hard way in Sacramento in the 70s, but it was just a warning. I had walked onto the interstate in that case. And they want to be paid now because they are afraid you'll leave their jurisdiction without getting their money. You could charge it. Or you can say you don't have the cash or credit cards, but they might threaten to take you to jail. I doubt they would, but they could.

If it comes up again, better to play it with, "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know. What should I do?" Better yet, stick to the 'blue highways'.

eddie
20-May-2010, 13:03
This is no different in Illinois. Even if you are an Illinois resident, when you receive a moving violation citation, you must either give the police officer your license, a bond card, or a cash bond. I know from experience, if you can't do this, you are taken to the local police station to wait until someone comes with your license or money to bail you out. This is "per offense" so if you've done multiple things wrong, your license only covers the first offense and you need a bond card or some cash. The ticket is your license until your court date, when they give you back your license. The ticket is not good for bond, so getting a second ticket while driving on one means you better have that bond card or some money.

I know this because I once spent a few hours in the Palos Heights, IL police station waiting for my wife to get home so I could get her on the phone to come bail me out. I had forgotten my wallet, so I had neither license or money on hand. At that time (late 1970's), it had to be cash, not plastic, so my wife, who did not have enough cash, had to wake her mother in the middle of the night to borrow money to bail me out. My mother-in-law (God rest her soul) provided the money, but she did remind me of this from time to time when I was getting too cocky.


--
Rick

interesting read. note to self...bring $$ and CC when traveling through Il. or be vewwy vewwy carewfuuul

Ivan J. Eberle
20-May-2010, 15:27
This is about revenue as much as safety. Back in the 1970's a warning was considered sufficient. I used to get read the Riot Act by highway patrolmen while hitch-hiking on Interstate highways throughout the US. This usually took the form of a cop barking "Get off the highway-- if I see you out here again I'll arrest you!" although I never once got arrested, not even cited, never got searched.

Donald Miller
21-May-2010, 02:12
This is a law in virtually every state that I can think of. It is also a law in Italy and Switzerland. It seems to be fairly universal.

It sucks because I have had to pass up some very interesting photo opportunities. But it really is unsafe.

Paul Kierstead
21-May-2010, 05:28
What are the chances that if just cited with a court date, he would take the time, trouble and expense to return. I'm guessing about zero.

I'm not getting it. If they don't show up, then they are guilty and automatically get fined. I'm sure out-of-state creditors are perfectly capable of collecting their money, so I don't see why the state traffic enforcement would be any different. The idea that if they didn't collect right away they would be incapable of collecting is just silly.

bobwysiwyg
21-May-2010, 06:30
I'm not getting it. If they don't show up, then they are guilty and automatically get fined. I'm sure out-of-state creditors are perfectly capable of collecting their money, so I don't see why the state traffic enforcement would be any different. The idea that if they didn't collect right away they would be incapable of collecting is just silly.

But the time, effort and expense to collect would make this route somewhat impractical, wouldn't you think?

rdenney
21-May-2010, 08:30
But the time, effort and expense to collect would make this route somewhat impractical, wouldn't you think?

There are other ways to deal with this. One is that states can (gasp!) work together to form reciprocity relationships, as many currently do for driver's license points.

For example, in Texas, if someone doesn't pay the fine or show up to contest the charge, a warrant is issued for their arrest. It's not worth the time to send a cop to make the arrest, so they just put it in the system and wait. When that person gets pulled over again, or when they try to renew their license or registration, up pops the warrant and they either get arrested or they have to deal with it before they can get their license or registration renewed. The arrest warrant could also be used as justification for suspending the license. It is a small extension to make that database reciprocal with other states so that it will pop up if the person is stopped elsewhere. The person can be arrested pending extradition, which could be obviated by paying the original fine plus the fine for "failure to appear" plus court costs, including court costs in both states. Thus, a missed $100 speeding ticket could turn into a couple of thousand bucks, which is a useful deterrent against skipping out on fines by otherwise law-abiding citizens.

If a person doesn't have enough reliable identity to make that work, then they'll probably not have a license that checks out when they are stopped in the first place.

States share a variety of databases now--I don't think including this would present much of a technical challenge.

I also bet it would be easy to find a collections contractor to seek collection for, say, half the fine. The fine in this case would be for the charge of "failure to appear", which will be a prima facie conviction, and greater than the fine for the original citation.

If a person doesn't pay and is never pulled over again, then who cares? How much did that cost to reform a bad driver? Cheap at twice the price.

It hinges on the moral purpose of fines. If their purpose is to act as a deterrent, then they agency shouldn't care if they get any of it as long as the deterrent was effective. If the fine is there to fund the collection of more fines, etc., (and, by extension, to fund the expansion of some local enforcement empire), then they will want to collect it on the spot to make sure they get it. Thus, when I see laws supporting collection on the spot, I immediately suspect the latter motivation.

I can think of situations where collecting the license is justified. I once was observing a street race during my misspent youth. One of the competitors, whose local "crew" included me, broke down, and we waited with his car while he went to fetch a tow-truck. The local sheriff came by, too late to observe the "contest of speed", but early enough to know we were up to no good, and his procedure was to collect the licenses of all present, and then issue the instruction--you guys follow me to the station. There was some questioning, but no arrests were made and no fines were levied--they didn't have the evidence to support that. But I can't think of a reason why the Sheriff's actions were not legitimate. Had he collected cash on the spot--there would have been grounds for serious complaints.

If traffic laws are going to imply the requirement to carry cash or risk incarceration for a single offense, then those laws need to be made with a lot more transparency and oversight. There are too many ambiguous traffic laws, and too many that are enforced for local political reasons than for the original justification. For example, speed limits are there to enforce reasonable and prudent behavior, not to pacify a group of complainers in a local neighborhood, or, worse, a local justice of the peace whose books are looking a little thin.

Rick "who can think of no justification for extorting cash from motorists on the spot for routine traffic offenses" Denney

Tom Monego
21-May-2010, 08:39
A friend just got a ticket for pulling over to answer his cell phone. He even had an instate plate. New Hampshire is looking for revenue every where. The funny thing about this is that there is a bill going through the state legislature about not driving with cell phones, don't know if it will allow you to pull over on an interstate to answer them. When i was freelancing I did it all the time.

Tom

Paul Kierstead
21-May-2010, 09:51
Sounds like Montreal cops 10 years ago.
Sounds nothing like the Montreal cops of today! :mad:

You should try driving into Montreal with Ontario plates. Even 10 years ago. About that time ago, I was driving into montreal in pretty heavy traffic; just a few feet between cars, traffic still moving briskly, all lanes full. A cop wove through the traffic to pull me over, special. In his defense, he let me go with a warning when I pointed out I was likely to get hit and run over if I slowed down (for the uninitiated, montreal drivers can be somewhat aggressive). I'm not sure why he put so much effort into pulling me over but didn't ticket me.

Paul Kierstead
21-May-2010, 09:54
But the time, effort and expense to collect would make this route somewhat impractical, wouldn't you think?

Not at all. If the offender is late in paying, you add on a hefty late fee to cover the collection charges. Some of our tickets here double if you don't make the deadline (which is typically reasonable). Certainly every other branch of government and private industry seems to be able to work up the energy to collect fees.

Drew Wiley
21-May-2010, 15:57
My custom is to do the fast cross-country driving across freeways and so forth at night, so I won't know what I am missing, and then take slow backroads during the day so I can stop and shoot. But it's hard for me to imagine paying fines directly to a
patrolman - sounds like a shakedown in Mexico or something - what's to keep them from pocketing it themselves? And the idea of confiscating a license/i.d. prior to a trial might be outright illegal - does this actually happen in America? But the flip side of the
coin is that here in Calif the Highway Patrol generally doesn't even bother stopping the
clunkers without license plates or registration, because they know they are possibly
illegals or downbeats without driver's licenses who won't even bother paying the fines, or even try to recover an impounded clunker vehicle; so they go after the middle class, just like the IRS. Apparently their priority right now is revenue, not road safety.

rguinter
21-May-2010, 19:54
What exactly did he cite you for? It should be on the citation.

Ooops! Disregard . . . "stopping for non-emergency purposes"

I have been tempted to a million times to stop on the interstate to take snapshots, but in the end I never do it. I think instincts play an important part.

Some seem to think he was pocketing the money and I say... perhaps. But as a safety specialist I think the comment above is most appropriate. Basically not a good idea even if it isn't strictly against the law in any particular state. I have never done it myself due to the obvious hazard.

Here in NJ incidents are very common with someone stopping on the shoulder and having someone run into them at full speed causing severe injuries and spectacular crashes. I've never understood the phenomenon completely or found anyone who had done a study. But there is something about a vehicle on the shoulder that tempts oncoming drivers to also pull onto the shoulder perhaps thinking it to be a travel lane... and believe it or not, failing to recognize the car ahead is stopped. Happens so often that they probably have a name for it.

Even in an emergency I would be hesitant to stop on the interstate. If I absolutely had to stop I would exit the car and stay well in front of it and off the shoulder out of harm's way.

Now on side roads I have stopped to take pictures of interesting subjects. But again I never stopped on the shoulder. I've pulled off into obvious parking areas ahead or behind and walked up to the spot to take my shot. But also being more focused on the traffic than on the subject I'm shooting.

Again just my opinions but words of advice from a professional safety specialist who has investigated and experienced many dangerous things.

Bob G.

JoeV
22-May-2010, 10:38
Hello to all,
Recently while traveling through Wisconsin on a long, 12-state road trip, my cohort and I stopped along the interstate to take a couple of shots. Our vehicle was contained completely within the shoulder, and this was FAR from a busy section of road. While we were shooting, a state trooper coming down from the opposite direction took my friends license and ordered us both back into the car until he was able to reach a turn around and come up behind he. He proceeded to cite us for "stopping for non-emergency purposes" and threatened to take us to jail if we did not pay on the spot due to our out of state plates. He claimed this is standard procedure in EVERY state, yet I have done this HUNDREDS of times in nearly every state in the US, on interstates and off, and yet I have never received or even heard of anyone receiving a citation. Has this fate ever befallen anyone here? Were you in Wisconsin?
The icing on the cake was that as we were pulling away, someone else pulled off in front of us to open and shut their rear passenger side door and he detained them as well. (Though I obviously can't say that he actually cited them) Needless to say, Wisconsin won't be on any road trips I'll be taking anytime soon.

This is common in most states; if you pull over, but are still within the RIGHT OF WAY of the highway, then you can be cited. You must pull completely off the right of way. The purpose of these laws are not to conspire against large format scenic photographers, but to maintain a safe condition for all parties involved.

~Joe

bobwysiwyg
22-May-2010, 14:35
..run into them at full speed causing severe injuries and spectacular crashes. I've never understood the phenomenon completely or found anyone who had done a study.

Actually, did read about one recently. Part of the problem is people have a tendancy to steer in the direction of their sight attention (gaze at a vehicle on the shoulder and you veer that way). More interestingly, they found it even worse for emergency vehicles on the shoulder with lights flashing.

JoeV
22-May-2010, 16:01
Which is why they teach us at motorcycle school to look in the direction you wish to go, not at the obstruction in the road.

It's actually a good philosophy for life: focus on where you want to go, and how to get there, and not on what's keeping you back.

~Joe

rguinter
22-May-2010, 18:15
Actually, did read about one recently. Part of the problem is people have a tendancy to steer in the direction of their sight attention (gaze at a vehicle on the shoulder and you veer that way). More interestingly, they found it even worse for emergency vehicles on the shoulder with lights flashing.

Bob. Yes indeed. There was another in the paper just this week. A spectacular crash on interstate 80 where a truck driver ran straight into the rear of a stopped construction vehicle at full speed. There were flashing lights and warning signs of all kinds to warn of the construction but the crash occurred in spite of the warnings. Shut down the highway for hours with a fuel spill and fire. I also recall a friend in the 1970s who stopped to help someone fix a flat. Parked his car behind and put on the flashers. Also hit from behind and became paraplegic.

So for me there's no stopping on the shoulder unless my car just dies. Makes me recall an incident about 2-years back where my car began overheating badly. But I drove to the next exit about a mile ahead to stop on a side road instead of stopping on the shoulder. Almost fried the engine but simply the best choice under the circumstances.

Bob G.

rguinter
22-May-2010, 18:27
P.S. Happens to cops too. A NJ state trooper was hit and killed on the shoulder a number of years ago. We still have a roadside memorial at the site which I pass by several times a week. http://www.odmp.org/officer/319-trooper-thomas-j.-hanratty

So to anyone wanting to stop on the shoulder to take pictures... my advice is don't do it. BG

Curt
23-May-2010, 01:10
What ever happened to "warning this time"?

rguinter
23-May-2010, 08:47
What ever happened to "warning this time"?

Curt: We're in a severe recession. I was born in the early 1950s. And as far back as I can remember, through every business cycle, government and taxes have grown. And to my memory, the size of government and its taxing structure have never receded during any one of those recessions.

So now we are in a situation where government is so large and hungry for $$$ that they are taking it everywhere they can. The "pay the trooper now" fine essentially was his "warning this time." BG

Andre Noble
23-May-2010, 11:11
You can not expect to be able to stop along the side of a freeway to take pictures. Sorry but your actions are not defensible. I am totally not trying to be mean. I just want to make you feel better in the sense that the trooper is totally in the right to cite a person for whatever reason - who stops along the side of any freeway for a non-emergency.

These troopers know how dangerous those places can be. Their colleagues are killed on them far too often.

dperez
27-May-2010, 09:18
I used to conduct accident investigations for commercial trucking lines. Stopping on an interstate to take pictures is not what the emergency shoulder is meant for. You can be cited just about anywhere for doing that. Just because you have not been cited in the past does not mean that there are no laws on the books.

People speed everyday and get away with it too; it doesn't mean that there are no laws against it or that we are not subject to being cited if we roll the dice and speed. The same is true of emergency shoulders, the fact that the area you are in is rural does not make the law less applicable, in fact, you are more likely to be struck by a vehicle in a rural area since people tend to drive at higher speeds than you would in a busy city.

Most of the commercial trucking accidents that I have investigated involved some interaction in the emergency shoulder, (especially in 2 lane interstates) either that is where the impact occurred, where the vehicle(s) ended up after collision, or the path a drive took to avoid a collision. By stopping to take pictures in the shoulder you put yourself and others at risk of being injured in a collision.

If itís something where you really canít get the shot anywhere else, contact the highway patrol or state troopers office and make the necessary arrangements, but boycotting the state for enforcing its laws is irrational. Wyoming is a beautiful state with lots to photograph.

Coyote
4-Aug-2010, 11:26
They're now enforcing a law saying that you must slow down and switch lanes to give stopped emergency vehicles a safe, wide berth. When the law came into effect the cops travelled in pairs, one to give the speeding ticket, the other to chase down those who weren't slowing down.

Also, when I took drivers ed with the ultra-defensive Young Drivers Canada it was suggested that if you have to pull off on the shoulder you should take the additional step of exiting the vehicle and moving away from the road, in case it is struck by a passing motorist.

Preston
4-Aug-2010, 11:41
"...it was suggested that if you have to pull off on the shoulder you should take the additional step of exiting the vehicle and moving away from the road, in case it is struck by a passing motorist."

This is excellent advice! I had a friend who was seriously injured when his disabled vehicle was hit from behind. He was parked in the emergency lane on the west-bound SF Bay Bridge. If he had stepped out of the vehicle, he would have been fine.

Emergency vehicles at a scene always have the right of way. Ideally, the responders would close the adjacent lane to give themselves a good safety zone. As a fire fighter/EMT, I worked lots of accidents over the years, and I can say that it's a scary business!

--P

--P

rguinter
4-Aug-2010, 19:50
...Also, when I took drivers ed with the ultra-defensive Young Drivers Canada it was suggested that if you have to pull off on the shoulder you should take the additional step of exiting the vehicle and moving away from the road, in case it is struck by a passing motorist.

I had just this situation a few weeks ago on I78 E near NYC. I had just cleared a construction zone when I hit a piece of debris and blew a tire.

After pulling to the shoulder I waited about 200 yards ahead and off the road while watching for the tow truck. During my 45-minute wait I lost count of the number of speeders rounding the curve too close and nearly hitting my car.

So my advice: don't park on the shoulder except in emergencies. And when you do get out of the car and well out of the danger zone in case someone rear-ends it. Bob G.

eddie
5-Aug-2010, 20:06
i only pull off where i can get onto the GRASS far away from the shoulder....even is this means driving on a rim (obviously a car that has lost power makes this difficult and in if i was in that situation i would be on the safe side of the guard rail....i am a mechanic/body man so i very rarely break down from engine failure)

i think the NY state cops are crazy to stand at the drivers window giving a ticket and the like...they should be on the passenger side at the very least.

being stopped on a motor way is scary business and should be treated with EXTRA care.

Vaughn
5-Aug-2010, 21:05
They're now enforcing a law saying that you must slow down and switch lanes to give stopped emergency vehicles a safe, wide berth.

Oregon also has such a law...and perhaps Washington. Though the signs say it is slow down or switch lanes.

Just got done doing a lot of driving in the above two states (with CA tags -- might as well be a bullseye). No more than 4 mph over the limit -- and at the limit in small towns. If the locals don't like being behind a "slow" moving CA driver, then too bad! I have no intention helping fund the state and local police! :p

Vaughn

MIke Sherck
6-Aug-2010, 06:03
Just got done doing a lot of driving in the above two states (with CA tags -- might as well be a bullseye). No more than 4 mph over the limit -- and at the limit in small towns. If the locals don't like being behind a "slow" moving CA driver, then too bad! I have no intention helping fund the state and local police! :p

Vaughn

It's amazing how friendly folks in Oregon and Washington can be when they learn you're from Indiana, not California! :)

Mike

Vaughn
6-Aug-2010, 06:08
It's amazing how friendly folks in Oregon and Washington can be when they learn you're from Indiana, not California! :)Mike

And many of those Oregonians were originally from California!:D

Vaughn

Greg Miller
6-Aug-2010, 08:20
i only pull off where i can get onto the GRASS far away from the shoulder....even is this means driving on a rim (obviously a car that has lost power makes this difficult and in if i was in that situation i would be on the safe side of the guard rail....i am a mechanic/body man so i very rarely break down from engine failure)

i think the NY state cops are crazy to stand at the drivers window giving a ticket and the like...they should be on the passenger side at the very least.

being stopped on a motor way is scary business and should be treated with EXTRA care.

I got out of a speeding ticket on the Northway around Glen's Falls several years ago simply because I pulled waaay over on the shoulder. The cop appreciated that I was concerned about his (our) safety).