# One last question about speeding tickets



## Guest (May 26, 2009)

Thank you to all those who answered my other question about 90/17 speeding law. I would have asked this question in that thread, however it says that the thread is closed.

If I got cited on a street that has posted speed limit signs, why would a police officer check off the box that reads "90/17"? Doesn't 90/17 imply that there are no speed limit signs posted?

Then, to the right of where the officer checked off 90/17, he checked off "posted". So shouldn't "90/18" have been checked? 

I am only asking because my 17 year old son received a ticket for speeding 15 mph over the posted speed limit. My husband and I are very strict (as is the JOL laws), and if he was traveling that fast, we are going to take away his license until he is mature enough to drive in accordance with the law.

Thanks again for your help.

~Michele~


----------



## Harley387 (May 1, 2002)

I call bullshit. This is a setup. LOL. However, to answer your question, the 90/17 infraction means that you were cited for "speed greater than reasonable", as opposed to 90/18, which would be "speeding per se" in violation of a posted speed limit. To dumb it down a shade, it all means the same....YOU WERE DRIVING TOO FAST! Have a nice day.

Lawman beat me to the punch.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

LawMan3 said:


> A 90/18 violation is a direct violation of a speed limit that has been properly posted and _*approved*_...


90/17 covers most all speeding infractions; 90/18 is a little more specific.

Appoved is key wording. For example, one also would not be able to cite for 90/18 for a speed limit sign the Wal-Mart Corporation just randomly decided to throw up in their parking lot without the approval of the local government. In this case you would have to cite 90/17.

90/17 is also the the statute that includes the double fine for constuction zone speeding; 90/18 does not.

90/18 is also the foundation (may also be by-laws, as well) for the maximum speed laws you see in some towns; Rockland for example, has a by-law that every unposted public way is a 30 mph zone if not otherwise posted.

90/18 also has another provision that allows local governments to block off or limit traffic flow (parades, special events, etc.)

IMO, 90/17 is not the ultimate statute, however. According to Rogers (local lawyer who writes law books for cops):


> "...When police use section 17--whether is is posted or not, the defendant will have a defense if he can demonstrate that his speed was reasonable. As an example, if the defendant was cited under § 17 for operating at 70 mph in an area posted at 65, he may have, depending on the circumstances, a defense if his speed was reasonable (5 or 10 mph over in the high speed lane may be reasonable in a given circumstance). Where § 18 is used, the defendant will have no such defense, even if he were operating one mile per hour over the speed limit. (2005 MV Law, pg. 58)


I know cops who never check the 90/18 box. I usually take the circumstances into consideration; I would say 75% of my cites are 90/18--almost always when I'm running stationary radar in a certain spot on a way where I know the town was responsible for posting the signs. While I know some magistrates in certain courts want 90/17 every time, I've won a number of 90/18 appeals before the judge.


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2009)

the problem is that we can't have signs that say "SLOW THE FUCK DOWN" .......


----------



## Guest (May 26, 2009)

mtc said:


> Don't feel bad, my nephew's been gigged by Attleboro for going 1 (one) mile over the speed limit!


My friends son ahs been written TWICE in front of the PD for 4 and 5 over. GET A LIFE. LOL


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Absent any other factors, my personal threshold for a stop is usually 13 or so, with anything 20+ getting the $$$ fine.


----------



## TPD Lt. (May 12, 2009)

mtc said:


> Don't feel bad, my nephew's been gigged by Attleboro for going 1 (one) mile over the speed limit!


I got pulled over because I passed a trooper on my way home one day. I was going 68 (in a 65). Lol I was pissed.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

TPD Lt. said:


> I got pulled over because I passed a trooper on my way home one day. I was going 68 (in a 65). Lol I was pissed.


 Yeah, not a good idea.

Hence why police cars do 10 to 15 over in the left lane; I don't want to have to go to a road rage incident that I may have inadvertently created in the 5 mile backup behind me.


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

Do they still have any of those old school troopers left that would jump out in the middle of the highway, and point at you to pull over as cars whizzed by?


----------



## phuzz01 (May 1, 2002)

94c said:


> Do they still have any of those old school troopers left that would jump out in the middle of the highway, and point at you to pull over as cars whizzed by?


I'm not old school, but that's what I do. I did it 113 times this weekend...


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2009)

OfficerObie59 said:


> Absent any other factors, my personal threshold for a stop is usually 13 or so, with anything 20+ getting the $$$ fine.


Depending on the road, I give 10 or 15; that removes the "speedometer error" argument from the equation.



phuzz01 said:


> I'm not old school, but that's what I do. I did it 113 times this weekend...


Phuzz....long time, no see brother! How have you been?


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

The lead story on Fox25 is that Turnpike speeding tickets are up 23% in the first quarter compared to last year at the same time. Nice follow up to yesterday's Herald article printing the Turnpike Troopers' payroll. 

Anyone else see a trend here? Somebody politically is influencing public opinion before they carpet bomb the countryside. Win their hearts and minds and their asses will follow.


----------



## Boston Man (May 6, 2008)

SinePari said:


> *The lead story on Fox25 is that Turnpike speeding tickets are up 23% in the first quarter compared to last year at the same time.* Nice follow up to yesterday's Herald article printing the Turnpike Troopers' payroll.
> 
> Anyone else see a trend here? Somebody politically is influencing public opinion before they carpet bomb the countryside. Win their hearts and minds and their asses will follow.


I dont see what the big deal is. If somebody is speeding, pull them over!

Last year, gas was almost at $5. Maybe everybody slowed down in an attempt to get better gas mileage . Now that gas is cheapER, people have sped up again.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> Depending on the road, I give 10 or 15; that removes the "speedometer error" argument from the equation.


That's one of those arguments that people make at a traffic stop that just digs them deeper into the hole; they either implicitly admit ot the infraction, or admit to another one.

Motorist: "Officer, my speedometer was off/wasn't working!"
Cop: "So you you vehicle has defective equipment?"

Motorist: "Officer, it would have been unsafe for me to stop in time to make that red light."
Cop: "So you were driving too fast then?"

Motorist: "Officer, I was speeding because that guy was tailgating me."
Cop: "So you were indeed speeding. Pulling over to let him pass never crossed your mind?"

I'm sure everyone else has more...


----------



## GeepNutt (Aug 10, 2005)

OfficerObie59 said:


> Absent any other factors, my personal threshold for a stop is usually 13 or so, with anything 20+ getting the $$$ fine.


Pretty much the same here unless they decide to start off our encounter with a wee bit of an attitude problem!


----------



## Foxy85 (Mar 29, 2006)

In the court I work at, the magistrate recommends 90/17 every time, as the streets have to be certified (by the state or town, I forget which one) in order for the 90/18 cite to be valid. A lot of officers that come to court as the hearing officer don't have the list of certified streets in their town.....can't say I blame them....So the magistrate pulled them all aside one day and told them to just cite 90/17.....

Every magistrate is different.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Foxy85 said:


> In the court I work at, the magistrate recommends 90/17 every time, as the streets have to be certified (by the state or town, I forget which one) in order for the 90/18 cite to be valid.


Either one.


Foxy85 said:


> A lot of officers that come to court as the hearing officer don't have the list of certified streets in their town.....can't say I blame them....So the magistrate pulled them all aside one day and told them to just cite 90/17.....
> 
> Every magistrate is different.


The issue I have is what happens when the guy you wrote for 90/17 goes "Hey, my speed of 13 over on that straightaway was reasonable at 3AM when no one was on the road but me" or "I was traveling downhill; my speed was reasonable for the circumstances"?

Not that I suppose it really matters on the average cite, but if you really want it to stick it to the guy or the stop was the precursor to a arrest or serious criminal case, I'd make sure you cite the appropriate statute, especially if it's going before a judge who's more likely to make the proper distinction.


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2009)

OfficerObie59 said:


> The issue I have is what happens when the guy you wrote for 90/17 goes "Hey, my speed of 13 over on that straightaway was reasonable at 3AM when no one was on the road but me" or "I was traveling downhill; my speed was reasonable for the circumstances"?


As long as the OT slip gets signed, who cares?


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

Delta784 said:


> As long as the OT slip gets signed, who cares?


Bingo!


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

phuzz01 said:


> I'm not old school, but that's what I do. I did it 113 times this weekend...


Ya, but those guys used to jump off of overpasses as they ran radar from above.


----------



## phuzz01 (May 1, 2002)

Delta784 said:


> Phuzz....long time, no see brother! How have you been?


I've been around, but between having a baby and getting served with a 1983 suit, it's been a little hectic.


----------



## SinePari (Aug 15, 2004)

phuzz01 said:


> I've been around, but between having a baby and getting served with a 1983 suit, it's been a little hectic.


Congrats...not for the lawsuit


----------

