Geeto67

not that it would matter but the only film you can legally apply to a windshield is 90% VLT. DOT restricts windshield tint to 70% VLT but most windshields already are tinted 80% VLT. A buddy and I did his Fox mustang a couple of years ago. We did it ourselves and used 50% I think. The issue wasn't so much the darkness as the old windshield had a "texture" from a million miles of rock strikes, sand blowing around, snow, road salt, grime, etc, and made visibility awful anytime a light was shining directly on it (like from headlights or driving into direct sunlight. but then again we aren't professionals.

I know the first Gen Miatas share a wheel size and offset with BMW's e30 (only the hub bore is different - bigger on the bmw). Does your generation miata share the same wheel size as the first ones? If so bmw E30 bottle caps are usually dirt cheap, can be refinished easily, and look stock without looking as boring as the actual stock wheels. if you are selling it, put as little money into it as possible, you will not get it back and def not by buying new wheels at a retail price. the "best value" here is get a set of the stock wheels and put them on and call it a day.

Since always. Operators of motorvehicles (including bicycles which I know are not MOTORvehicles) always have to yield to pedestrians in almost every situation. The only exception I can think of is in NYC where traffic and pedestrians are just a massive mess. Now, if the family decides to sue their recovery might be reduced by something called contributory negligence, where it is determined how at fault (usually by percentage) the family was in creating the accident situation. I can tell you from personal experience that it is usually not much in a situation dealing with children and residential streets. If it was a mother and kids trying to cross 270 - then an argument can be made they are largely at fault but that isn't what happened here.

But we already covered the fact that there are compelling reasons to plead "not guilty" and fight the ticket that go beyond whether someone did it or didn't do it. Even if you think you did it, but you think the officer also did something wrong you have to contest it to even get a look at what the municipality has in evidence. Also if you want to take advantage of the plea system for whatever reason you have to start the process. Basically those that just "pay it" may think they are "doing the right thing" but the state or township looks at it as they get to charge a premium to people who don't want to be bothered or are intimidated by the process. They don't think you are doing the right thing, they just know they get more money if you pay it upfront for whatever reason.

my bad.

Actually I am having fun and yeah at this point I try to make you read a short story just to be a dick.

unless you are really in farm county boonies or roads with posted 55mph limits, un-posted speed limit is 35 not 55. I have worked with many, many, LEOs and it is just like any other job.: There are good ones and bad ones. And sometimes the good ones are even put in bad situations and act bad. When I did private security I was glad for the police backup I had but that didn't mean I didn't see a couple of Officers toss a beatdown to a drunk every once in a while. I don't even blame the LEO who rear ended my best friend (who was on his motorcycle) and then wrote him 5 tickets to cover his ass, nor the state which tried to cover it up by generally pulling out all the stops to prevent the release of the dash cam which showed my friend doing the speed limit and the officer not paying attention right before the incident <--- but it doesn't mean I trust them to do the right thing.

you implied that you were less likely to get a ticket by saving it for the backroads. My point is that it might not as unlikey as you think and I shortened it to "safe" as in the colloquial phrase "safe from getting a ticket". But thanks for taking the reading comp cheap shot even thought you new what I meant. And honestly as a kid growing up in NYC in the 80's, I don't have the luxury of equating "police officer" with "safe", even when I was in the fire department. I do equate Police Officer with "giant hassle" because anytime I have needed one or been in contact with one that is what it was.

Two weeks ago I saw one of Columbus's finest sitting in someone's driveway on a two lane road with a radar gun. So saving it for the back roads doesn't mean you are any safer. Truth is, if you are a resident of a neighborhood and you complain about speeders along a certain road the only response is to send an officer who will hand a ticket to anybody above the limit going down that road. It's they only way they can show they are doing anything. So everyone going 45 in a 35 gets a ticket (and points since it is 10 over). Some of these municipalities rely so heavily on the revenue that they write everyone for everything and will just sort it out in the plea process. To start the process, you have to plead not guilty to the initial ticket. There is actually an economic theory at play here - those who value their time over the money or points pay one price, those who value the points and fine over their time but don't really have a good case pay another reduced price through the plea system in exchange for a guilty plea, and those who truly feel they are innocent go to trial and take the risk they pay nothing or the full price.

You think of this as a waste of the courts time but really the courts are counting on you to do it. That is why there is a plea system and multiple appearances before you actually get to court. You go, you get a better deal, everyone is happy. They get their money, you pay less money and keep your license, it's win win all around. If you just pay it, they are the only ones who win.

Ok, but because you asked so nicely. I was having so much fun too. No people have every right to fight tickets. Period. Not with in reason, not only a select group. Everyone has this right, and if they want to exercise this right for whatever reason they chose they should be able to without a bunch of moral crusaders crapping all over them for wanting to talk about it. Even if you are in the wrong but you feel like there is something you want the government to justify, or maybe you want to investigate your options you still need to plead not guilty and start the process. The government even gives you a system in the form of the plea deal if your objection is more financially based than guilt based.

Then I have no idea why your boss is being a dick, but he isn't instilling a lot of loyalty in his employees with this. Worst case scenario, you still have "sick" days saved up right?

The cop isn't going to take ownership of his actions if he is wrong, he's still going to write the ticket and get you to pay it. If he is wrong and you are wrong why should you be the only one who pays and he doesn't? Seem fair to you? Work with your sense of morals? More importantly, what if you just don't agree with the fine amount. It's your right to challenge and get a plea deal. Or more importantly what if you don't have the money and you need a payment plan or an extension of time to do it, same process. This isn't a question about taking responsibility so much as it is about making fully informed decisions to get the most beneficial outcome for your situation. Sounds like a lot of you just don't know how things work or are just so pro-law enforcement that police can do no wrong but civilians can.

+1!!!!!!

just so I understand the time line: 1) you put in for time off but it is not approved 2) your parents booked a flight 3) your boss offhandedly tells you he is probably not going to approve your time off 4) your boss sends email 5) as of right now your time off has still not been approved did I get that right? I'm with Exodus - take the issue to HR and see what they say. If you just take the time off from work without approval you are giving your employer a pretty good reason to fire you (whether he will or not is completely up to him). I am assuming you work for Dublin Chevrolet. I am not sure how busy car dealers are around the holidays but I imagine pretty busy what with end of year deals and incentives, the rush to clear the lot of leftovers before they take a depreciation hit, plus the small tendency for people to buy cars as xmas presents for their spouses. The problem your manager has is that everyone wants off for the holidays, and some of those people have more seniority than you so he is letting you know that despite your early request if someone more senior than you puts in for the same time and it short hands him in your work area he may not be able to approve. I would also try to soft touch it with your boss, make a case why he should approve your time vs someone else's. Maybe you haven't seen your folks in a while and it's really important to them, maybe its a special anniversary. Butter him up while selling him a sob story and maybe he'll be sympathetic and cut you a break. Or not. From what I hear car dealers are a brutal place to work.

So just because it never happens to you it never happens to anyone? Your logic works fine for you but it doesn't work for everybody. Everybody has the right to do what they feel is right for their situation, and if someone feels that something is "bullshit" about the situation and wants a little advice on challenging it he should get crapped on by a bunch of guys with "moral" holier than thou attitudes? Personally if I got a no front plate ticket I would probably feel the same way, but you know what? I won't get one because my car has a front plate. If you guys are going to be so morally judgmental about someone "owning up to it" when they break the law, how about being moral enough to not break it in the first place. As for the "wall" of text, yeah this is entertainment for me. Even the memes you post are funny, plus I get a little satisfaction in how annoyed you guys seem by someone just speaking their mind and defending a guy's legal right to challenge the government and asking a community for advice. I suppose you guys could just not read it but then again, it would require self control and judging by the number of times you couldn't help yourself previously I think I'll be entertained for a long time. What can I say, this is better than TV.

It is not a "man up" issue. I personally feel the way any state runs their speeding program is more a scam or a racket and less public safety law enforcement. I would like the states and municipalities to "man up" and stop treating people like ATMs, but that isn't going to happen if I complacently just pay every ticket and never question their methods. From a purely economics standpoint, excluding the opportunity cost of missing a 1/2 day of work, there are advantages to fighting the ticket and none to be had by paying it blindly. In NYC the officers actually had incentive to write tickets that were less than scrupulous because of the way the NYPD tracked it's people including their traffic enforcement (The Short version: they used CompStat which incentivised officers to write unfounded "small crime" and traffic infraction tickets and under report more serious crimes like rape and assault). I am not saying this is the way it works in Ohio, but for a state that writes more speeding tickets than any other there is bound to be a significant population that are subject to human error. It's a person's right to challenge the government when he feels he is being treated unfairly, why shit on that right that another wants to use just because you have some strong moral feelings about guilt and innocence. Your taxes provide for this entire system in which if you feel the government has wrongly accused you, or isn't playing fair, or just in general you want them to back up their statements you can question them. It's not a "waste" because you have already paid for it whether you use it or not. the judge is still going to get his salary regardless if he hears your case or stares at the wall. Furthermore there is a fee the court makes you pay to hear your case so any "resources" that are not already covered by the taxes you paid you pay out of pocket. So the "wasting resources" argument is kind of a red herring.

I keep saying if you show up early to downtown you can be in and out in less than 2 hours. And it isn't just the cost of the ticket but the increase in your ins rate as well that you pay over the next couple of years. For most a real cost benefit analysis is a wash but then again I don't know many who make more than $500 a day. It's totally fine to feel like your time is more valuable, most people do. However for those who care more about the principal or who don't want the points downtown traffic court usually cuts a plea deal - think of it as a "hassle" discount.

If that's how you feel then fine it is your right. But what about those times you aren't at fault but the officer thinks your were, or is doing it because he wants to give you a hard time? do you still think it is fair to pay it then? Also if the court system is giving reductions in fine and sentencing if you just sign up to fight it and everybody gets that but you, do you still think its fair that other at fault people get to pay less than you or don't get to take points but you do? Just because a cop says you did something isn't a decree of guilt, it is an accusation he has to prove through a system. If you did it and there is evidence to support it fine, the system will find you guilty and you'll be no worse off if you paid it. Remember a cop doesn't have to actually measure you speeding, he just has to guess that you are to write the ticket. If he is using speed measuring equipment then he is gathering evidence, if he is just guessing than he is permissibly giving you a hard time.

Are you at Easton or Polaris? Not on topic, just wanted to see if I would bump into you during the day or not.

I see Ok smartass, I get it you think every police officer is infallible and our justice system is unquestionable. The guy asked for some advice and I gave it based on my personal experience. What do you bring to the table besides being a ignorant smartass? So where id I put that soap box...need to get on this high horse.... While speed enforcement is a necessary public service, the way the scheme is set up is a little bit of a racket, and Ohio is the worst offender as it consistently in the top 5 states for most speeding tickets per year and was number 1 many times. Plus the "system" is setup so if there is a screw up on the government's side, or there isn't sufficient evidence for the ticket, the only way you'll know is to go through the process of fighting the ticket and hopefully discover the mistake on your own. A ticket is an accusation, make the government stand behind their accusation and prove it as they have the burden of proof. Most times these things are setup because they are counting on people to think this is too much of a "hassle" to fight so the number of tickets that are actually questionable is higher than one would think. Cops are human and thus fallible, the system is a human construction and thus susceptible to error, and if you truly believe there is an error in the reporting there is a system for you to at the very least discover it and make your case. You pay for this system with your taxes, why not use it. And if you are going to use it, why not have a strategy. I'm kinda shocked at the number of people here saying "just pay it". I mean if you are going to get stuck anyway paying it why not get a good close look at how it works just in case it happens again and you really want to fight it?

that is a great looking car. Hey Doc, what's the mileage?

This is wrong but not entirely wrong. It's wrong because it implies you shouldn't fight it. Fight every ticket. It's not wrong because it is a lot harder to fight a ticket based on justified breaking of the law, but much easier to fight it on some technical error or omission of the officer. What was he using to measure speed? was is a Lidar gun or did he record the speed off the speedometer? your ticket should tell you. If it was Lidar, laser tickets are hard to beat on technical faults. take it to an atty (if you don't take any initial plea deal). It's still possible to beat it on technical grounds but this relies on certain circumstances like the officer having you visible uninterrupted (no cars pass between you and the subject or the officer has a less than steady hand) in his lidar sight for approx 7 seconds (the time it takes for a Lidar gun to record an accurate speed) or whether the gun was in motion or stationary. The NHTSA has a manual of published standards for LIDAR operation by a police department and it's worth a read. If it was verified by visual reference or vehicle speedometer, most judges know this is flawed because the officer needs to visually match your speed with his vehicle for a specific length of time before initiating the stop and there is a lot of room for error in that method. Most jurisdictions will offer you a plea deal for 9 mph over the limit. This carries no points but still a fine and sometimes an insurance hike (sometimes not). I got one last year on the top of 27 between sawmill and 315 exits and this is what they offered me without even going to trial and all it cost me in time was 3 hours in the morning to sit and wait to talk to a prosecutor (I got there late, if you get there before they open it is less).

I'm having a similar issue trying to track down a turbo Legacy GT wagon with a manual. That is a one year only car (2005) and not that many made. 100K mile cars usually carry a $3K premium over book value of a regular legacy GT wagon. If you are going to hunt down a unicorn, be prepared to go all over the country to find one.

keep in mind, they are still a law firm and they do from time to time get enough disgruntled shareholders with significant losses to file suit. But that's all part of the risk of the stock market. I have this issue with KSF because I work for an...ahem...large financial institution in the third party oversight program. Lawsuits against our vendors are part of the risk of evaluating them so when we first started seeing these news items against some of our vendors (NUS is not one of them) we had to investigate. It's really sneaky because KSF make it seem like it's an official investigation, and they are really good at marketing, but the EOD risk is a private law suit which can still affect share price. For what it is worth Foti is kind of a dirtbag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Foti As sheriff, Foti came under criticism for various questionable activities, including the use of inmates as a state labor force and operating a sailboat marina from which his office derives rental income.[8] Foti also used his influence to promote Tulane University and its football program. In this instance, the issue for Orleans Parish residents to consider is whether it is proper for the criminal sheriff to use public funds to promote a private institution that pays no taxes. Foti was also criticized for inmate abuse, such as denying routine medical care to inmates. In some cases, inmates died as a result—such as a diabetic who was denied insulin and an inmate who was refused medical care even though he was vomiting blood. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the main priority of Foti's office was prosecuting private citizens on behalf of the elderly who died in the storm. Foti publicly claimed that medical staff, who worked at Memorial Hospital in New Orleans during the storm, had murdered several patients.[9] In July 2007, Dr. Pou sued Foti, accusing him of playing politics with her life and the dead from Katrina.[10] After a lengthy investigation, a grand jury declined to indict Pou. [11] The charges have since been expunged, and the state of Louisiana will pay Dr. Pou's legal fees.[12] Several lawmakers have apologized for the accusations against Pou.[12] The failed prosecution of Dr. Pou was an issue during Foti's unsuccessful reelection campaign in 2007.[13] In a related story, the owners of a nursing home near Poydras filed a civil suit against Foti and other state officials for failing to evacuate nursing home residents during the storm.[14] When Charles Foti was Sheriff, he illegally strip searched 80,000 people.[15] Even mothers trying to get their children to school.[16] When the Federal Appeals Court told Foti to stop, he refused to listen.[17] Because of this, Foti cost taxpayers 10 million dollars.[15] When he was the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, he delayed suing insurance companies.[18] Foti also had Dr. Anna Pou and two nurses arrested and tried to prosecute Dr. Anna Pou when she is considered a "Katrina Hero."[19]