speed trap question

[username]

i saw a *gaggle* of motorcycle cops running radar here in austin this morning. they had one bike on an overpass, and the guy was hiding behind a sign, and pointing his laser at traffic coming over a rise. (this is southbound mopac and he was up on the braker over pass, if youre a local.) then about 1/4 mile down the road there were SEVEN bikes parked. three guys were on their bikes, ready to engae in hot pursuit (kyuh kyuh kyuh!) and the rest were milling about. i spotted an eight coming back northbound, presumably after issuing a revenue request to a motorist.

when you get a ticket, one of things people often say to do is to request to see the reading on the gun, and to also view the calibration sticker. in a situation like this, im assuming the guy on the bridge is just up there painting motorists over and over, and by the time one of the downstream guys pulls you over, blah blah blah, the guy on the bridge has wiped your reading off his gun. so they cant show it to you. they might even refuse, because they dont want to disassemble the speed trap. (this is why i would also like to do that, to make that guy have to ride all the way down to where im parked.) so what im wondering is if you go to court and challenge it, can you make a valid argument that they lost track of who was going how fast (assuming they pull over a couple of cars at nearly the same time) and that they dont really know what your speed was, or the cop may have gotten confused, and thus they should dismiss your ticket? anybody ever try to challenge a ticket in one of these 'spotter with multiple chase vehicles' traps? are tickets in these situations easier to beat?

traffic was light, weather was clear and sunny. traffic was moving at the speed limit.

it made me wish i had a valentine detector, just to test it out on a known hot spot and see what happened.

thanks.

[Rad]

Sorry, but the question I think ya should be ask'n is:

"was I speed'n?":brow

If yes, just pay the daymn ticket. :1drink

[username]

i wasnt/didnt get pulled over. i just cruised by and saw all this going on. if i get busted, i take the medecide.

this is a thought exercise. dont be so hung up on reality. ;)

[DesertRider]

Some years ago in Long Beach, California, saw a radar trap just like that, but with only two bikes. On a whim I circled the block, parked behind the car with the radar gun, walked up to the right window, and asked if I could sit and watch. The cop was a bit suspicious at first, but then said, "Sure," opened the door, and I sat there watching him nail people for the next hour or so.

His technique was fairly simple: The radar was set to ping every car that came over a rise behind the car, and if the speed exceeded a given threshold (I think he had it set at 11 mph over the speed limit), the radar unit would give an audible alarm. (The radar unit would also print out every speed reading on a paper tape, along with a time stamp.) Upon hearing the alarm, the officer in the car would look down the street, spot the car, and radio to one of the motorcycle cops which car to pull over (e.g., "the red Mustang convertible") and what speed he'd registered. After the guy got his ticket, the motorcycle cop would radio back some info about the car (the license plate, I think) and the officer in the car would note it alongside the paper entry that had triggered the ticket.

In the hour or so that I sat there not one person ever asked to see the readout. There were a few times, though, when the officer got the alarm but did not radio for a ticket, apparently because it was a whole crowd of cars and he couldn't pick out which one had been the offender.

[Rad]

Originally posted by username
this is a thought exercise. dont be so hung up on reality. ;)

fair enough:bliss

[YB in IN]

Originally posted by Rad
Sorry, but the question I think ya should be ask'n is:

"was I speed'n?":brow

If yes, just pay the daymn ticket. :1drink

Screw it, I'd rather try to fight the man. Learn the system to beat the system. If I have a snowballs chance of beating a ticket, I'm going to take it.

[eljeffe]

You have no right to view the radar/lidar reading, and the cops are under no obligation to show you.

People who say that you can ask the cops to view the reading on the unit are misinformed.

[R75_7]

There's a small paperback book called "How To Beat A Ticket" or something very similar. If I remember correctly it had a cartoon picture of a motorcycle cop on the cover. Anywho, it said in the book to always question the ticket because of the revenue factor. It's as much, if not more, about making money than it is about making the streets safe. I have asked to se the radar. About 2 or 3 years ago I got a speeder. I was running late to work and was about 10 miles over the limit, 45 in a 35 zone. I didn't see the motorcycle cop. Next thing I knew he came outa nowhere and got me. My fault so I ate it, no problem. The radar was fine. So the following days on my way to work I look for the cop. Finally about a week or so later I saw him parked on the sidewalks in between two bushes. So that weekend I go to the spot where he was and there was a lot of oil drips, he'd been there many times. So I pull out the ole book and it said they can't break the law to enforce the law. And in the book it said fight every ticket because when it goes to court odds are the cop won't show and the judge will drop the charge. But because I was speeding and guilty I didn't pursue it. But I never forgot about that book. That was the last speeder I got, thank god.

[MarkF]

Originally posted by username
when you get a ticket, one of things people often say to do is to request to see the reading on the gun, and to also view the calibration sticker.

so what im wondering is if you go to court and challenge it, can you make a valid argument that they lost track of who was going how fast.

I've never been a real radar hog but then again I don't work on the interstate. That said, everytime I've been asked to "see the speed" I've said no. Two reasons: 1) I never lock in the speed because it prevents me from seeing if you speed up. 2) Letting an unknown motorist get out his car, walk back to mine and stick his head in my patrol car (near my shotgun) presents a serious officer safety problem in my opinion.

As for challenging it in court. Any reason is a valid reason. Whether the judge is pro motorist or pro cop has more to do with the success than anything else.

MarkF

[Rad]

Originally posted by YB in IN
Screw it, I'd rather try to fight the man. Learn the system to beat the system. If I have a snowballs chance of beating a ticket, I'm going to take it.

Let me guess; You also complain about how the law is on the side of the criminals and they are always get'n off on technicalities. Oh ya, and ya let yur kids get into the movies for under 12 when they are 13, just ‘cause they can get away with it.:bliss

[lorazepam]

When I was a leo, I never wrote under 15 over the limit. I got few complaints, and felt I was more than fair. I have only contested one ticket, the verdict was guilty, no fine and 25.00 court costs. There were 2 troopers off the road for court, one trooper was paid for 2 court appearances, and the pilot only came to the second hearing. Besides missing work for 2 days, and the expense of the officers, I still got the points, and increased insurance.

[dlearl476]

Originally posted by eljeffe
You have no right to view the radar/lidar reading, and the cops are under no obligation to show you.

People who say that you can ask the cops to view the reading on the unit are misinformed.

That may or may not be true, I don't know. I do know that in every "beat the rap" article I've seen, a leo's refusal to present the evidence to you immediatly opens all sorts of "chain of evidence" defences in court. Remember, here in America you're presumed to be innocent until PROVEN to be guilty, even on a traffic violation.

[MarkF]

Originally posted by dlearl
That may or may not be true, I don't know. I do know that in every "beat the rap" article I've seen, a leo's refusal to present the evidence to you immediatly opens all sorts of "chain of evidence" defences in court. Remember, here in America you're presumed to be innocent until PROVEN to be guilty, even on a traffic violation.

Also, not true. A speeding rap is not a crime but a violation. You have no right to a jury trial. There is no chain of evidence because the violation is based on the officer's observation or the observations of a third party. The radar (or laser) is only a tool to verify those observations. The unit's calibration may be challenged. But, if yopu were going twice the speed limit and the officer testifies that you were going well in excess of the posted limit the radar is hardly necessary. What device is evidence of stop sign, traffic signal or passing violations? None, yet those tickets are routinely upheld in court.

MarkF

[YB in IN]

Originally posted by Rad
Let me guess; You also complain about how the law is on the side of the criminals and they are always get'n off on technicalities. Oh ya, and ya let yur kids get into the movies for under 12 when they are 13, just ‘cause they can get away with it.:bliss

First off, if I had a kid who was 13, I would have had to conceived them at age 10. :) There is a difference in the severity of a speeding ticket (a traffic violation) vs. a crime (a felony). Our society has made that distinction with the laws of our land. I ride what is reasonable and prudent (which was the speed limit in Indiana until the 1950's) per the conditions and my own riding ability. If I deem it appropriate to speed, then I'm going to. I will accept the consequences of my actions, but not consequences that I as an individual feel to be unwarranted and unjust. This is my right, and any other citizen's right for that matter, in our legal system. So yes I will fight a speeding ticket. [flame suite on]

[Rad]

Originally posted by YB in IN
First off, if I had a kid who was 13, I would have had to conceived them at age 10. :)

Ahhhhhhhhhh. I understand now:bliss

[eljeffe]

Originally posted by dlearl
That may or may not be true, I don't know. I do know that in every "beat the rap" article I've seen, a leo's refusal to present the evidence to you immediatly opens all sorts of "chain of evidence" defences in court. Remember, here in America you're presumed to be innocent until PROVEN to be guilty, even on a traffic violation.

Actually, a speeding ticket (or other traffic violation) is not a criminal offense (unless it's something like Felony Evasion). There is no presumption of innocence (or guilt). You are handed a citation, and it's up to you to take it to court, pay it, or ignore it (at which point it does become a criminal offense).

There is no chain of evidence because it's all based on the officer's judgement. The radar and lidar readings are only there to back up his observation.

[lancew]

Between the ages of 16 and 23, I had my license suspended 5 times for speeding. I've only had one ticket I didn't deserve (38 in a 35, and I got away with it). I've had a LOT of tickets reduced by LEO's because I was nice. Three years ago, a SC guy reduced me from 77 to 56 in a 55 work zone because it was 11:30 pm, raining, and 35 degrees (was on the bike going from ATL to CLT). My only other ticket in the last 10 years was last summer- a VA statey whacked me for 70 in a 55 (true), and I was a little annoyed that he didn't reduce it 1mph to give me a break on the fine (he should have IMHO, it was on an interstate-type road in the middle of nowhere). On the other hand, I was speeding so I guess I shouldn't whine.

When I stack these up against all the times I grab the throttle and go, always on deserted roads and often into warp 6 speeds, I feel like I'm getting off easy. YMMV.

[karasek]

Here in Nebraska all traffic viloation revenues go to our school system. I love seeing somebody get busted.

Its pretty simple to me, they broke the law. What are the laws there for? To protect motorists and others who share the road, as well as to keep traffic flowing safely. So if your against that, then you deserve that ticket. I'm probably one of the rare people that tends to follow every traffic rule to the best of my ability, but even then I make mistakes, and if I get a ticket because of it, then I'm more than happy to dish out the funds, because that is how it works.

In my opinion, people who fight tickets, when they know they're guilty, are obviously immoral. However, I'm still glad our system has a way to allow you to fight a ticket, because law enforcement officers, god bless them, are human and can have a bad day or make normal mistakes like everybody else.

[flash412]

Always fight a speeding ticket. People get off for all sorts of crimes and infractions. If you beat a speeding ticket, then by definition you were innocent even if you were doing 30 over.

If you have one cop zapping and the other chasing, then you stand twice the chance of one or the other not showing up in court. You have the right to face your accusor and if it takes two... then you win if they both aren't there. Always ask to see the display and ask to have the officer demonstrate that the unit is in calibration with the tuning fork. If it isn't in calibration, you win. If he won't show the display, that is certainly a point in your favor, especially if the judge doesn't like that particular officer.

[DarrylRi]

Originally posted by flash412
You have the right to face your accusor and if it takes two... then you win if they both aren't there. Not in Washington state (and maybe not in California, too). WA passed a law a few years ago to allow the ticket to stand on its own as the state's evidence.

As has been pointed out, tickets are infractions, with no risk of jail time, so procedure and evidence rules are a lot weaker.

[manicmechanic]

Not trying to do other than show how things CAN work...my primary employment is in the unclear (oops, nuclear) industry. Talk about rules. The philosophy here is, if you are having difficulty following such simple rules like traffic laws, why should we think that you'll follow the rules here? It really makes you feel good when every five years, to ensure personal reliability, we have to undergo fingerprinting, background checks, and credit checks, just to make sure we're legal to work. And, yes, we must report traffic violations greater than parking tickets. So if you see me trying to obey the speed limit, there's more to it than just following the rules.

[username]

djkarasek - you make a comment that confuses me...please dont take this personally, im not going after you or anything, and im not trying to pull an eric blume here, but you made a comment that i cant stop thinking about, so i wanted to highlight it and shift the discussion a bit. :)

you state that people who fight tickets are obviously immoral. i disagree with this, and here's why. please tell me what you think:

the speed limit on a road is set at some value. say 55. traffic moves on this street at a higher speed, say, 62, all the time. its a 6-lane divided highway with good visibility. in short, it's perfectly safe to go 62, but it is illegal. if you drive this road, for some reason you find yourself going 62. 80% of the drivers are scofflaws on this road.

let's say i go contest one of these tickets, and i argue that the speed limit is set incorrectly, that the road should really be a 65 mph road, and i lose. (i think this argument would never win, but let's say i make it.) according to you i am now immoral merely by exrcising my right to challenge a law. (i would argue that i am amoral, but thats another discussion. if thats what you meant, then never mind, i agree with you 100%! :D) but i also happen to be one of 100 people a year who contest tickets on this same road. it sends up a flag, and they do a study and they realize, 'hey we should raise the limit to 65 on this road. it's perfectly safe to do so.' so they raise the limit on the road to 65 mph. this happens one month after i get my ticket, lose my case, and pay my fine. so in 30 days time my behavior has not changed, i still drive the same speed. but now my behavior is legal, when formerly it was illegal.

this happened here in austin, and all over america when the sacred 55mph maximum was abolished.

so one month ago i was immoral to challlenge a law that i thought was unfair/flat out wrong? and then when the speed limit increases, doesnt that validate my argument? is it immoral to argue when you are correct? i was right, there was no problem with going 62 on that road.

i would argue that one of the morals of american society is to challenge unfair laws, to challenge the government when it infringes on our liberty, and to do so with legal, peaceful and acceptable methods, such as via the judicial system. thats a huge basis for the existence of our form of government, to give the people a voice.

if i always pay my speeding tickets, or any law violation, without first examining the situation and attempting to distinguish between my notion of right and wrong and the government's notion of legal and illegal, i believe i am violating the founding principles of our government, and i am thus behaving immorally. i should think critically about these situations. i believe that people who blindly accept the pronouncements of our government are immoral. people who accept laws at face value without thinking about them? immoral. willing to sacrifice freedom for security? deserving of neither! immoral.

that said, i think it would be immoral for me to fight a ticket where i went 70mph through a school zone. (assuming i was really going that speed, etc etc.) but thats only because i agree with the idea that we should go slowly around schools, because i think that children are important. does this make sense?

here's another example - the patriot act is a law. it allows the government to do stuff that i dont like. if they do it to me, and i find out, i will sue them over it. i would challenge the validity of the patriot act. (lots of people are already doing this.) these people are not immoral merely by exercising their right to challenge legislation. i think they are wonderful.

so i guess the executive summary is that i dont think *all* people who challenge speeding tickets are immoral by virtue of contesting them. i think that statement presupposes that all laws are by definition 'right' and 'moral' which is goofy.

all right, let me have it! if you meant to type amoral, i apologize for doing all this typing. :D

thanks for the responses.

[MarkF]

Originally posted by username
so i guess the executive summary is that i dont think *all* people who challenge speeding tickets are immoral by virtue of contesting them. i think that statement presupposes that all laws are by definition 'right' and 'moral' which is goofy.

Personally, I have no problem with challenging tickets if you believe you were wrongly accused or the law is wrong. Just as long as you state your intentions to the judge. To say the cop was out to get you or there was no way you were going XX MPH when you know damn right you were going 15, 20 MPH over the limit is immoral. State what speed you honestly believe you were going or that you feel the speed limit is unjust and stand up for what you believe.

MarkF

[username]

we are in violent agreement. :)

[YB in IN]

Originally posted by username
we are in violent agreement. :)

Me too! :)

[karasek]

username

Please remember that I stated they are immoral when "when they know they're guilty".

If you have a problem with the speed limit on a particular road, wouldn't it make sense to go through the proper channels, as opposed to getting caught speeding and then contesting it in court? This is happening to me right now, not fighting a ticket, but a road leading to my house for almost a mile use to be 35, now it has changed to 25 and nothing on that street makes a fair case on why we should slow down. I plan on complaining about it, but I drive 25 on that road.

So in your example, I still think you would be wrong to drive over the speed limit. You would still be guilty for breaking the law. But, I will give you slack on that this is probably how some laws are changed, i.e. after several people have broken it and it is realized that an uneccesary law is in place, maybe to deal with a problem that no longer exists, such as a fuel shortage or something. In my opinion, the moral person in this case would have paid the ticket, and then gone through a proper channel to have the speed limit changed. Again, still guilty for breaking a law.

I also stated that I'm still glad that our system allows you to fight a ticket, in the same manner we can fight any law. I don't think we should have to break that law as a means to begin changing that law. I agree with you that unfair laws should be challenged, but not by breaking that law.

I have spoken to LEO about keeping up with the speed of traffic, even if it is above the speed limit, and in our state at least, it is nonsense.

Just because everybody else is doing it, doesn't make it right. But the question presents itself, why is everybody else doing it?

Respectfully yours,

[username]

you make good points. thanks the for the fun discussion. good luck with the road by your house. (25? jeez!)

ride safely.

[trmptrmrk]

Originally posted by djkarasek

I have spoken to LEO about keeping up with the speed of traffic, even if it is above the speed limit, and in our state at least, it is nonsense.

Just because everybody else is doing it, doesn't make it right. But the question presents itself, why is everybody else doing it?


Unfortunately, it is unsafe to travel much slower than the flow of traffic. "because everyone else is doing it" can make it safer than doing the speed limit! Safety has far less to do with speed limits and far more to do with your fellow motorists. Putting along at the speed limit while most of the traffic does 15mph faster gives everyone else the majority of choices about your position in traffic. Speed traps are not really there to increase safety, but to increase revenue (as someone already mentioned). The gaggle of cops mentioned above were a waste of resources, imo. They could have been enforcing better laws!

More food for thought:
Think about all the time people wasted (not that long ago) during the national 55mph limit. How many of those hwys now have speed limits that are at least 10mph higher? Do the math, going 70 down that empty interstate can get you there hours earlier than 55. That's a tough one to justify (in retrospect).

All that said, I keep my speed relative to traffic (and the obvious host of other factors) to stay safer and have no need to get thrills from excessive speed.

[trmptrmrk]

Here's a scholarly story about fighting a ticket.... (http://www.cockeyed.com/lessons/court/traffic_court.html ) :evil

[JimVonBaden1]

Originally posted by username
djkarasek - you make a comment that confuses me....

all right, let me have it! if you meant to type amoral, i apologize for doing all this typing. :D

thanks for the responses.

All that and not one capital letter. Must have a broken shift key! :doh

Jim:brow

[camfarm]

I do not think that morality and the law are bed-partners at all.

One is a religious based belief system that differs hugely among people everywhere. The other is an artificial imposition of government for a control purpose.

Maybe you meant to say that you think those who oppose certain statutes of the local government by willfully violating them are acting unethically, in your opinion. Still a weak position unless you firmly believe that the government exists to control the citizens' acts. I do not believe that is government's purpose.

Now to comment about speeding and speed limits. It is my belief that speed limits at the National, state and local levels no longer represent a reasonable effort by government to regulate safety and insure ease of use along the highways and roads. Instead, many different and cumbersome means are used to create a control system that varies among political units and across jurisdictions. It is my practice to follow or ignore these limits as conditions and traffic dictate. That is neither moral, nor ethical, nor loyal to my government(s) but it is also not immoral, unethical, or disloyal. It is simply citizenship.

[MarkF]

Originally posted by camfarm
I do not think that morality and the law are bed-partners at all.


I think the morality was of challenging the violation on false pretenses not the actual limit.

MarkF

[jgr451]

Morality,the role of government and the exercise of our freedom and fundamental inalienable rights...

Are there any of the latter,given an avaricious government bent on the eradication of opposition or free thinking,a la Brave New World?If air were not free and the government controlled it,to whom would it supply air and on what terms?

Contesting a traffic ticket on any foundation short of lying under oath in court is well within the realm of the exercise of our rights and freedoms,I say. A defence based on the premise that, " They cannot prove I was speeding ", is a manifestation of our right to be presumed innocent,to have our rights determined by due process,and an explanation of the concept of reasonable doubt.

[jgr451]

Some clerical errors do amount to a process defence.For instance,a ticket that gives the wrong address to file a dispute note.

And in my book,if the policeman doesn't show up for the trial,that is a complete defence,ie,no case to meet.

Most people do not want to risk hell,purgatory,or 14 years in slam for committing perjury...a fact I often point out to disgruntled losing clients who assert that the policeman lied!!

[username]

the other thing you might tell your clients is that the policeman may not have lied. but he may have been wrong and that was why he has a contrary story. example:

i believe its raining out. im utterly convinced. i say it's raining out. we look out the window, it's sunny. i am wrong, not lying.

i believe its sunny out. im utterly convinced. i say it's raining out. we look out the window, it's sunny. i lied.

the problems and confusion arises when it isnt as simple as pulling the shade and looking out the window. so the cop might be telling *his* truth, and his truth is just flat out wrong. and the same is true of the clients. i guess this is why attorneys make so much money, the world is a big grey area, and they know how to make it turn green. :D

and i guess it can be sunny and raining, but i dont want to go there...we've beat this thread to death! thanks for the replies and good thoughts everyone.

[jgr451]

I always tell my clients that it is highly unlikely that the policeman is lying.Why would he put his job on the line for YOUR speeding ticket?Or impaired driving or whatever else.
.I was really hoping that this thread could be about something other than lawyer bashing or pretending to certainty in an uncertain time and place;or blaming the people who swim in the sea of uncertainty for the fact that the sea is salty....I suppose social workers really do want to take away your kids so some other family can raise them..
Thanks username,we did have some good discussion.

[Gnome]

I'm an ex ticket writer and I can give you some suggestions:

1. Speed Radar doesn't work properly in the rain,snowfall, mist or foggy conditions. (oh it works), but the radar will bounce and scatter on these objects, giving all kinds of weird readings.

2. Speed radar cannot be used near High power lines,and or electrical stations, because it will give false readings.

3. Whe riding in a known area of radar use, ride near a speeding 18 wheeler,(I know that sucks and is dangerous) but the radar will paint the larger object , and not you.

4. Be real nice when stopped. Sugar draws more flys than vinegar.:D

[JimVonBaden1]

Originally posted by Gnome
I'm an ex ticket writer and I can give you some suggestions:

1. Speed, "Radar doesn't work in the rain,snowfall, mist or foggy conditions. (oh it works), but the radar will bounce and scatter on these objects, giving all kinds of weird readings.

2. Speed radar cannot be used near High power lines,and or electrical stations, because it will give false readings.

3. Whe riding in a known area of radar use, ride near a speeding 18 wheeler,(I know that sucks and is dangerous) but the radar will paint the larger object , and not you.

4. Be real nice when stopped. Sugar draws more flys than vinegar.:D

Now THAT is the type of advice I want to hear from a LEO!

Thanks!:clap

Jim:brow

[lorazepam]

Another tip from a former LEO
Radar Detector = Ticket, at least for me it did.

[JimVonBaden1]

Originally posted by lorazepam
Another tip from a former LEO
Radar Detector = Ticket, at least for me it did.

Radar Detectors are also illegal in VA. You can not even have it in sight!

Jim:brow

[flash412]

Originally posted by lorazepam
Another tip from a former LEO
Radar Detector = Ticket, at least for me it did. I've been stopped twice with my radar detector prominently displayed on my motorcycle. We even talked about it both times. Once I got let off because I wasn't going as fast as everyone else he was stopping there that day (55/45). The other time, (93/55) he was going to write me for 77 when he got a call about a drunk driver. So I got a walk on that one, too.

[YeOldCrier]

I've installed a detector that sees 360 degrees, so if LEO is coming up from behind I'll know it before it's too late. Had it for two years and no tickets at all!

[lorazepam]

I've been stopped twice with my radar detector prominently displayed on my motorcycle. We even talked about it both times. Once I got let off because I wasn't going as fast as everyone else he was stopping there that day (55/45). The other time, (93/55) he was going to write me for 77 when he got a call about a drunk driver. So I got a walk on that one, too.

Not only does BMW think you are the man, seems the cops do too!:D

[Doc nacho]

I don't know what other places practice as far as traffic enforcement and courts..etc But here in michigan there's nothing that says that I have to show someone the radar reading showing how fast they were going. As far as going to court and requesting the paperwork showing the last time the radar gun was calibrated, whoever came up with that idea was sadly misinformed. Everytime I've had someone or seen somene make that request, they get the same answer from the judge. "I'm not going to waste the court's time with that and I don't think it is an issue here today." At best around here, you can set up a court date and hope to either work out a deal with the officer or ask the judge to be gentle. One thing that people should look out for though are the Lidar (laser-rader) cameras. They work like a handheld radar gun but also take a digital snapshot of the car as it's hit with laser. When you go to court, the officer walks in with a photo of your car/bike with a time and date stamp on it and a little red box on your car showing where the laser actually reflected off the car. I think you might be pretty well screwed at that point. Just my $0.02

[Rad]

Originally posted by Doc nacho I think you might be pretty well screwed at that point. Just my $0.02
:rofl

[lorazepam]

http://www.escortradar.com/srx.htm check this out