PDA

View Full Version : Guy Gets Ticket 30 Seconds After Parking, Writes Awesome Letter To Contest It


joro
Apr 9, 2010, 01:54 PM
Perhaps the best part of getting a ticket within 30 seconds of parking your car is the awesome letter you write to contest it. Like the recipient of the ticket in question, we're dying to find out what violation could have occurred in that time. And to shake the hand of the cop who wrote him up. It's rare you can shake the hand of the biggest jerkstore in the world.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/guy-gets-ticket-30-second_n_525091.html


One Word -- Awesome :D

r.j.s
Apr 9, 2010, 02:02 PM
Awesome is the only way to describe that. :D

Rodimus Prime
Apr 9, 2010, 02:40 PM
And people wonder why parking cops are thought so poorly of.

rdowns
Apr 9, 2010, 03:09 PM
That was great.

I recently got a ticket. I pulled into the spot and realized I had no change for the meter. No problem, Starbucks right there and a coffee would do me good. I see the meter maid, tell her I have no change and am running into Starbucks to get some and would be right back. She nods and I run in, get change and run back out.

The see you next Tuesday wrote me a ticket. A letter sent resulted in the fine being reduced from $55 to $40. :rolleyes:

H00513R
Apr 9, 2010, 03:14 PM
LOL glad he got it revoked.

yg17
Apr 9, 2010, 03:16 PM
see you next Tuesday

That took me a minute, but that's very clever :D

I got a ticket back in college for parking in a campus lot I didn't have a permit for. Fair enough, except this was during the summer when I was literally the only car in the entire parking lot. It's not like there was a lack of parking spaces that day and I was taking up a valuable spot for someone else :rolleyes:

MattSepeta
Apr 9, 2010, 03:44 PM
Here in Minneapolis where snow is common, we have to deal with the "snow emergency routes".

At one point last winter myself and both room mates had our cars towed in the same week for parking on a snow emergency route, when there was no snow!

"Traffic Control" = Money making racket.

Just like red light cams.

leomac08
Apr 9, 2010, 04:00 PM
hahaha.....30 seconds after he got off his car!!!!!

the ticket guy must have been waiting for him in a corner or something......

like those sneaky CHP officers....(hiding behind a tree or rock on the freeways):D

SnailMailFTW
Apr 9, 2010, 05:41 PM
Ha ha! That's freakin' hilarious.

StruckANerve
Apr 9, 2010, 05:52 PM
Wow. What a douche that cop was. Kudos to that guy for fighting back.

pukifloyd
Apr 9, 2010, 06:02 PM
hahaha this is awesome :D loved that letter

dmr727
Apr 9, 2010, 06:40 PM
The see you next Tuesday wrote me a ticket. A letter sent resulted in the fine being reduced from $55 to $40. :rolleyes:

What a friggin' twat. I swear, I don't understand how people like that sleep at night.

quagmire
Apr 9, 2010, 07:29 PM
Just like speed cams.

Fixed.

I support red light cams as long as they are set properly as that is a safety measure.

Speed cameras are the money grabbers because the chances of an accident goes up because everyone slows down before the camera and then speed back up. While breaking the law, it is still safer if all of traffic is going at the same speed rather then having people not pay attention and have traffic in front of them to slam on their brakes to slow down and get rear ended.

.Andy
Apr 9, 2010, 07:32 PM
Speed cameras are the money grabbers because the chances of an accident goes up because everyone slows down before the camera and then speed back up. While breaking the law, it is still safer if all of traffic is going at the same speed rather then having people not pay attention and have traffic in front of them to slam on their brakes to slow down and get rear ended.
Is there actually data that supports any of this?

quagmire
Apr 9, 2010, 08:05 PM
Is there actually data that supports any of this?

No, but to me it is common sense. :p Traffic moving in a uniform fashion should at least decrease the chances of accidents. And following people approaching speed cameras, they do slam their brakes hard and if the driver behind them is distracted, it could cause an accident. While if the camera wasn't there, car ahead would have maintained its speed and chances of accident should be low. I know the changes in speed and people not paying attention contributes to traffic jams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

As long as drivers pay attention and don't exceed what the driving conditions call for, traffic moving at 40 MPH in a 30 zone should not decrease safety. Why is the Autobahn one of the safest roads in the world when they go a whole lot faster then we do? Because they know how to freaking drive. They know going 100 MPH requires their attention. They know to stay out of the left lane when they are not passing anyone. Speed doesn't kill. It's drivers who don't know how to freaking drive and think driving doesn't require their attention or don't follow basic road etiquette that kills.

I have maintained my position since going through getting my Private Pilots license, is that drivers ed should be like getting your Private Pilots license. It is too easy to go and get a drivers license. Where getting your Private Pilots license is a whole lot tougher because you really need to know how to fly and know your plane in order to pass. At least in my state, all I had to do is know some road signs and what type of drug alcohol is for the written exam and do basic driving maneuvers. That doesn't show I can safely drive a car on public roads.

carlgo
Apr 9, 2010, 09:07 PM
Is there actually data that supports any of this?

You do know that some camera lights are deviously set extra-fast on yellow? People enter the intersection thinking they have the usual amount of time, the time generations of motorists have gotten used to, but the light is set to quickly change to red to catch even those who are paying attention and trying to drive lawfully. Ka-ching!

So, drivers, used to a pretty standard yellow interval, expect those in front of them to continue through the yellow, as God intended. Instead, the red light suddenly flashes, the drivers in front of them suddenly and unexpectedly slam on their brakes and so you get a chain-reaction effect all the way back down the lane.

These lights are marketed to cities as revenue collection devices, pure and simple. In fact, at least some companies would install the system for free in return for a piece of the action!

Also, the camera system has no effect on those who don't see the light or are drunk and cause all those nasty tragic intersection accidents. It only catches the marginal violator who isn't actually doing anything unsafe.

BTW, I haven't had a ticket in ages (knock, knock) so I am not responding out of spite.

quagmire
Apr 9, 2010, 09:12 PM
You do know that some camera lights are deviously set extra-fast on yellow? People enter the intersection thinking they have the usual amount of time, the time generations of motorists have gotten used to, but the light is set to quickly change to red to catch even those who are paying attention and trying to drive lawfully. Ka-ching!

So, drivers, used to a pretty standard yellow interval, expect those in front of them to continue through the yellow, as God intended. Instead, the red light suddenly flashes, the drivers in front of them suddenly and unexpectedly slam on their brakes and so you get a chain-reaction effect all the way back down the lane.

These lights are marketed to cities as revenue collection devices, pure and simple. In fact, at least some companies would install the system for free in return for a piece of the action!

Also, the camera system has no effect on those who don't see the light or are drunk and cause all those nasty tragic intersection accidents. It only catches the marginal violator who isn't actually doing anything unsafe.

BTW, I haven't had a ticket in ages (knock, knock) so I am not responding out of spite.

If the red light cameras are set properly, I have no problem with them.

As posted above, speed cameras are the ones I have a problem with.

.Andy
Apr 9, 2010, 10:39 PM
No, but to me it is common sense. :p Traffic moving in a uniform fashion should at least decrease the chances of accidents. And following people approaching speed cameras, they do slam their brakes hard and if the driver behind them is distracted, it could cause an accident. While if the camera wasn't there, car ahead would have maintained its speed and chances of accident should be low. I know the changes in speed and people not paying attention contributes to traffic jams.
I'm pretty sure what you have here is a hypothesis. To move it into the realms of evidence it's in need of some accident figures pre-and post camera. Seeing as you were talking authoritatively I thought you might know of some studies.

You do know that some camera lights are deviously set extra-fast on yellow? People enter the intersection thinking they have the usual amount of time, the time generations of motorists have gotten used to, but the light is set to quickly change to red to catch even those who are paying attention and trying to drive lawfully. Ka-ching!

So, drivers, used to a pretty standard yellow interval, expect those in front of them to continue through the yellow, as God intended. Instead, the red light suddenly flashes, the drivers in front of them suddenly and unexpectedly slam on their brakes and so you get a chain-reaction effect all the way back down the lane.

These lights are marketed to cities as revenue collection devices, pure and simple. In fact, at least some companies would install the system for free in return for a piece of the action!

Also, the camera system has no effect on those who don't see the light or are drunk and cause all those nasty tragic intersection accidents. It only catches the marginal violator who isn't actually doing anything unsafe.

BTW, I haven't had a ticket in ages (knock, knock) so I am not responding out of spite.
Again some good hypotheticals and reasons to get annoyed but not really any data to support what you're saying.

I've never got a ticket at either a red-light camera or a speed trap nor have I even remotely been close to having an accident at either due to the reasons mentioned. All the hypotheticals put forth so far would easily be avoided just keeping adequate distance between yourself and the car in front and/or approaching lights with caution.

Rodimus Prime
Apr 9, 2010, 11:52 PM
If the red light cameras are set properly, I have no problem with them.

As posted above, speed cameras are the ones I have a problem with.

A lot of Cities reduce the yellow timing of the lights.

In League City, TX they state required the city to refund a lot of the tickets because the yellow light was below the state legal limit. In Dallas Texas at one light they state required the city to refund ALL the tickets at one light because it was shown that at the camera intersection the yellow was a lot short than the other lights on the road that had the exact same traffic patterns (go down the road one light in either direction and the yellow was longer). Both of those I red in the paper when they state forced the refund.

In Lubbock Texas it was shown the city SHORTEN its yellow lights at cameras intersection.

Houston TX shorten their yellows after getting red light cameras.

This is just a short list of examples of what cities have done with Red light cameras that I know about. Cities abuse the cameras and do not use them to reduce wrecks but instead to bring in more money. Lubbock and Houston were the news. Both were below the TXDOT recommend length for yellow lights and it was noted that they were shorten after the cameras were installed.
This is just a few of the many example.

quagmire
Apr 9, 2010, 11:55 PM
A lot of Cities reduce the yellow timing of the lights.

In League City, TX they state required the city to refund a lot of the tickets because the yellow light was below the state legal limit. In Dallas Texas at one light they state required the city to refund ALL the tickets at one light because it was shown that at the camera intersection the yellow was a lot short than the other lights on the road that had the exact same traffic patterns (go down the road one light in either direction and the yellow was longer). Both of those I red in the paper when they state forced the refund.

In Lubbock Texas it was shown the city SHORTEN its yellow lights at cameras intersection.

Houston TX shorten their yellows after getting red light cameras.

This is just a short list of examples of what cities have done with Red light cameras that I know about. Cities abuse the cameras and do not use them to reduce wrecks but instead to bring in more money. Lubbock and Houston were the news. Both were below the TXDOT recommend length for yellow lights and it was noted that they were shorten after the cameras were installed.
This is just a few of the many example.

Key word there is set properly. I realize cities have abused the red light cameras.

Rodimus Prime
Apr 9, 2010, 11:57 PM
I'm pretty sure what you have here is a hypothesis. To move it into the realms of evidence it's in need of some accident figures pre-and post camera. Seeing as you were talking authoritorively I thought you might know of some studies.


I do not have links to any studies but do have what I remember reading in the paper.

After Lubbock and Houston both installed red light Cameras it was noted wrecks at traffic lights did increase by a large amounts. Now the number of deaths and serious injuries at the intersection did drop. The wreck increase was from people slamming on the brakes and people running into them. Caused lovely chain reaction. Deaths did decreases, Wrecks increased.

Rodimus Prime
Apr 10, 2010, 12:02 AM
Key word there is set properly. I realize cities have abused the red light cameras.

true if set properly.

I honestly am fine with red light cameras as long as they are put up not for bring in cash but really to reduce the danger at the intersections. Just I have yet to see that be the case. Instead it is in all about bring in the money.

It is my same view about speed traps that are set up for the money not to reduce speeds.

Take for example 2 cities. One is my home town one is the one right next to it.

In my home town in school zones the cops set their cars in plane sight in the turn lanes with their lights on. This is to make their presents very known and to STRONGLY encourage drivers to slow down and it works very well. They are making it clear that they want traffic to go slower to protect the kids and traffic goes a heck of a lot slower.

next town over in school zones the cops hide, use unmarked cars and do about everything they can to catch a speeder to bring in the money. Yes city 2 bring in more money but it is pretty clear they are running stings to bring in the cash compared to my home town which intent is to protect the kids.

.Andy
Apr 10, 2010, 12:05 AM
I do not have links to any studies but do have what I remember reading in the paper.
Which perhaps (and I mean no offense!) isn't the best source Rodimus Prime! But as you point out I guess it should be assessed on a site-to-site basis. The local conditions could make a massive difference to the implementation of cameras for speeding or red lights. Data from one intersection/stretch of road might not extrapolate to others.

Now the number of deaths and serious injuries at the intersection did drop.
Which surely is the outcome that one is after. And the city gets some income from crappy drivers to boot.

The wreck increase was from people slamming on the brakes and people running into them. Caused lovely chain reaction.
Which is really just poor driving from those doing the rear-ending (not to mention the brake-slammers). Presumably in the US the rear car is culpable in such a collision?

calderone
Apr 10, 2010, 12:23 AM
And people wonder why parking cops are thought so poorly of.

I was in Chicago a few weekends ago. Paid for the parking, went in to eat and the restaurant was a little busy. We went a few minutes over but no biggie right? No, I come back and see two tickets. One at 2:59 and one at 3:00. Ridiculous.

iNewton4000
Apr 10, 2010, 01:21 AM
I support red light cams as long as they are set properly as that is a safety measure."

That's the problem though: RLCs are almost never setup properly, esp. since their primary use (whether admitted or not) has -- and will always be -- revenue generation (just like almost all speed related infractions). Even if such a company/municipality tried to be above board and do things right (unlike shortening Yellows, etc.), the technology is much more complicated and fraught with "bugs" than you would think: for instance, there is a delay between when the lamp (or even LED!) is powered and the point at which it actually shines, this very slight delay actually becomes a real issue at speed, when the difference between a ticket and no ticket boils down to hundredths or even thousandths of a second -- IOW, you can actually be "guilty", even though you were totally innocent!

Speed cameras are the money grabbers because the chances of an accident goes up because everyone slows down before the camera and then speed back up. While breaking the law, it is still safer if all of traffic is going at the same speed rather then having people not pay attention and have traffic in front of them to slam on their brakes to slow down and get rear ended.

This is likely as well, but prolly not to the degree that RLC rear-enders have already been ABSOLUTELY proven to cause! There are of course a zillion other reasons not to have speed cameras...


Is there actually data that supports any of this?

Actually, a quick google will present you with enough overwhelming data to keep you reading for a whole week!


No, but to me it is common sense. Traffic moving in a uniform fashion should at least decrease the chances of accidents. And following people approaching speed cameras, they do slam their brakes hard and if the driver behind them is distracted, it could cause an accident. While if the camera wasn't there, car ahead would have maintained its speed and chances of accident should be low. I know the changes in speed and people not paying attention contributes to traffic jams.

Yep. "Speed differential" is easily the root cause of most accidents on freeway/multiple-lane divided hwys. I even have on tape the LA Sheriff's Dept. talking about that exact topic, and how it was the biggest cause of accidents on our fwys -- amazing of them to admit that. IOW, that clueless slow driver in the fast lane is responsible for more tickets, accidents, and chaos than they will ever know.

As long as drivers pay attention and don't exceed what the driving conditions call for, traffic moving at 40 MPH in a 30 zone should not decrease safety. Why is the Autobahn one of the safest roads in the world when they go a whole lot faster then we do? Because they know how to freaking drive. They know going 100 MPH requires their attention. They know to stay out of the left lane when they are not passing anyone. Speed doesn't kill. It's drivers who don't know how to freaking drive and think driving doesn't require their attention or don't follow basic road etiquette that kills.

I have maintained my position since going through getting my Private Pilots license, is that drivers ed should be like getting your Private Pilots license. It is too easy to go and get a drivers license. Where getting your Private Pilots license is a whole lot tougher because you really need to know how to fly and know your plane in order to pass. At least in my state, all I had to do is know some road signs and what type of drug alcohol is for the written exam and do basic driving maneuvers. That doesn't show I can safely drive a car on public roads.

100% quagmire. We are the worst, lowest skilled driving country in the world... I'll stop here 'cuz I could write a treatise on that!


Again some good hypotheticals and reasons to get annoyed but not really any data to support what you're saying.

Actually (not to keep piling on) but cities shortening Yellows is pretty old common knowledge (for car guys especially); in fact, I thought WE were the first here in CA! ;-) Even very conservative courts were forced to throw them out by the boatload.

I've never got a ticket at either a red-light camera or a speed trap nor have I even remotely been close to having an accident at either due to the reasons mentioned. All the hypotheticals put forth so far would easily be avoided just keeping adequate distance between yourself and the car in front and/or approaching lights with caution.

Be careful with "I've never" and "would easily be avoided" when it comes to driving: one day you may find yourself in a situation of cascading events where simplistic theories will not suffice. For instance: what happens when someone dives into that "adequate distance" you left (usually the length of an 18-wheeler, right! ;-) and jams on the brakes just as you are doing a good "Driver's Ed" look over your other shoulder; you turn back quickly, but the other car is basically stopped two feet in front? Stuff like that happens all the time, and the more miles you drive, the more likely you will eventually run into such situations.

Presumably in the US the rear car is culpable in such a collision?

Yes. But not always. In fact, IIRC, the number of cases where the one in front is correctly blamed has increased (more lawyers/worse drivers/etc.).


Bottom line: all these money making stop-gap, fake "solutions" will never significantly reduce anything in this country. Actual driver training (which this country has NEVER officially had), and graduated/tiered licensing is the ONLY way things will ever change. (And sadly, that will probably never happen: it would mean millions of people would never be able to drive -- my dream world :-)

JoeG4
Apr 10, 2010, 01:29 AM
I think red-light cameras should be accompanied by timers showing how many seconds until the light turns red. If people know it'll take them 10 seconds to get through an intersection, then they'll have to stop before that. :)

TuffLuffJimmy
Apr 10, 2010, 01:35 AM
Obviously this is Obama's fault.

It's an Obama'nation!

.Andy
Apr 10, 2010, 02:14 AM
Actually, a quick google will present you with enough overwhelming data to keep you reading for a whole week!
Perhaps. As I said before quagmire was speaking authoritatively. I thought he misght be able to point out some studies of speed camera ineffectiveness.

Be careful with "I've never" and "would easily be avoided" when it comes to driving: one day you may find yourself in a situation of cascading events where simplistic theories will not suffice.
Given "I've never" is past tense I don't think I need to be careful at all. Impressive hypothetical although it that has nothing to do with the situations bought up by either quagmire or carlgo about speed or red light cameras as we are discussing though :confused:....

Bottom line: all these money making stop-gap, fake "solutions" will never significantly reduce anything in this country. Actual driver training (which this country has NEVER officially had), and graduated/tiered licensing is the ONLY way things will ever change. (And sadly, that will probably never happen: it would mean millions of people would never be able to drive -- my dream world :-)
Odd "bottom line" given that Rodimus Prime just posted that speed cameras reduced deaths at his specific intersection.

Here are some good studies from the Monash university accident research centre. Worth a read.

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc201.html

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc242.html


I think red-light cameras should be accompanied by timers showing how many seconds until the light turns red. If people know it'll take them 10 seconds to get through an intersection, then they'll have to stop before that.
Some of the lights in europe have this both for cars and pedestrians. I found it wonderful in both regards :).

ayeying
Apr 10, 2010, 02:06 PM
At least you guys are lucky that you didn't get a ticket for a "Red Light Camera" that took shots of people during a green light.

I had a friend got a ticket like that, he camped out in front of the same intersection for 2 hours and video taped the next happening of the incident and presented it in court. Talk about commitment lol

Kawininja619
Apr 10, 2010, 02:51 PM
Haha reminds me of when i got a seatbelt ticket in high school for pulling off the curb and driving 10 feet while putting it on. The court was not as nice as this one.

chaosbunny
Apr 10, 2010, 03:18 PM
More cameras and surveillance from the government are such a wonderful thing. Of course all that politicians want is your best, they would never even think of going for your money or anything. Step in line, go shopping, watch TV and sleep tight. You are such a wonderful citizen.

GSMiller
Apr 11, 2010, 07:54 AM
Is there actually data that supports any of this?

http://www.leftlanenews.com/study-finds-red-light-cameras-could-actually-cause-more-accidents.html

http://www.leftlanenews.com/six-us-cities-tamper-with-traffic-cameras-for-profit.html

niuniu
Apr 11, 2010, 08:04 AM
If you're prone to a lot of tickets in the UK, and I know some people who take one every week or two, take a Ferry over to N Ireland and buy your next car from there and come home. They'll still ticket you, but because of your registration it gets lost in the system. (N Ireland have a seperate uncoordinated vehicle licensing dept: DVLNI) I've not had any enforcement or follow up from a parking ticket in over 3 years now living in Edinburgh with a N Ireland license plate.

I read a while back that they were trying to have an EU wide co-ordination for tickets - to stop travellers from getting off. But from what I can see it's not very effective.

Eraserhead
Apr 11, 2010, 11:11 AM
Some of the lights in europe have this both for cars and pedestrians. I found it wonderful in both regards :).

What jaywalking is actually made illegal :eek:.

And some evidence showing red-light cameras having no effect:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/chicago-burb-ditches-red-light-cameras-no-safety-advantage.ars

RawBert
Apr 11, 2010, 12:58 PM
Great story.

I successfully contested a traffic violation ticket once. The violation was "straddling the lane" in Burbank. I hate Burbank cops! It was impossible to straddle the lane in such a short distance from where I had turned right to where I turned left - unless I was drunk. I showed up to court with pictures and prints of Google satellite images. All the cop said was, "I don't recall." C'mon! :mad:
I saw him outside and stepped right behind him as he walked down the steet. He turned around and saw me all pissed off. But I didn't make eye contact. He got a little on guard. I went on my way. Ha! That bastard.

Padraic
Apr 11, 2010, 01:48 PM
100% quagmire. We are the worst, lowest skilled driving country in the world... I'll stop here 'cuz I could write a treatise on that!


I almost spit my coffee all over my computer when I read this... I hope you someday get the opportunity to drive in a middle eastern country.

BTW, I think we've completely hijacked this thread...

I had plenty of time to think your post over today during my hour commute in Cairo traffic to get to work, and my 1.5hr commute to return home. Due to differing routes my commute is approximately 20mi to work and 13mi on the trip home, and no, that's not backwards.

During my commute today I witnessed three traffic accidents, had at least seven cars come to a complete stop in front of me in the middle lane of the road for no apparent reason, was cut off countless times by cars that were turning left from the far right lane (or vice versa) without any regard to who was still moving straight and watched in awe as dozens of cars, buses and fully loaded dump trucks backed up on the highway because they missed their exit. I regularly watch people dive in front of traffic to get across the road (check out this link: Crossing the Roads in Cairo (http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/04/07/wedeman.urban.egypt.street.crossing.cnn?iref=allsearch)). Should I also mention the donkey carts that drive in the middle of the streets, or the complete disregard for any kind of lane? I drive in traffic daily as three lane roads turn into six or more, with cars just inches apart, all of them jockeying to get that one car length ahead of their neighbor. I could go on with more examples, but I just hate to think about it.

Please, before you make yourself sound like a typical American (I am one) that has never left the country (I am not one) educate yourself on the subject you are posting about. Try this... (http://www.articlesbase.com/cars-articles/the-worlds-worst-drivers-car-accident-statistics-from-around-the-world-609862.html)

American drivers are nowhere near the worst or lowest skilled. Cairo drivers are also not the worst, ever driven in Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, S. Korea or Thailand? I have...

jknight8907
Apr 11, 2010, 02:41 PM
100% quagmire. We are the worst, lowest skilled driving country in the world... I'll stop here 'cuz I could write a treatise on that!

Ha! You don't get out of the US very often, do you? We are FAR from the worst drivers.

redking31591
Apr 11, 2010, 02:57 PM
The city of Montgomery, Alabama actually removed all of their traffic cams because, the processing fees and upkeep cost more than they were making off of the cameras.

quagmire
Apr 11, 2010, 03:50 PM
Ha! You don't get out of the US very often, do you? We are FAR from the worst drivers.

I agree. I haven't seen personally, but I do hear about how the Italians drive!:eek:

Americans do tend to be bad drivers, but we are far from being the worst!

wttheninja
Apr 14, 2010, 12:18 PM
Ha Ha I can just see another story like this

"Person gets parking ticket for staying in a 15 minute parking for 15:01, writes an awesome letter"

RedTomato
Apr 15, 2010, 11:43 AM
Haha reminds me of when i got a seatbelt ticket in high school for pulling off the curb and driving 10 feet while putting it on. The court was not as nice as this one.

You were probably lucky not to be charged with failing to be fully in control of the car, which is a more serious offence. 1st 10 feet, you're pulling out, merging with traffic coming from behind you (or avoiding oncoming traffic) and changing gears etc. Lots of accidents happen in the first few seconds of driving.