Something else you might not know.
You're more likely to get a flat tyre or blowout in the right lane, and hit debris.
How many dead tyres from especially trucks do you see on the verge?... increases likely hood of suspension incidents as well.
Something else you might not know.
You're more likely to get a flat tyre or blowout in the right lane, and hit debris.
How many dead tyres from especially trucks do you see on the verge?... increases likely hood of suspension incidents as well.
BTW your premise is/was that this was a ticket trap.
Traps are set up and and strategically placed. This was in plain view.
Unless you're claiming the pulled over motorist was part of the trap
you can't call this a trap.
Holy fuck that's a good point. I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics required to vault over itQuote:
Originally Posted by limitles
No gymnastics required.Quote:
Originally Posted by nunbeaterHoly fuck that's a good point. I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics required to vault over itQuote:
Originally Posted by limitles
Officer #1 pulls over a car normally (in this case, a cell phone user while driving).
Officer #2 hears about this on the radio, knows he's close, comes over, and parks on the scene. Waits for the next car to pass in the right lane without substantially slowing down. As soon as it happens, jumps out and grabs them.
One ticket begets two.
Double $$$ for the county.
Easy to pull off because a lot of people aren't aware of this law and will happily pass by on the right, thinking they're obeying the law.
hasn't it been standard practice since forever that if one police car pulls someone over, a second available car in the area will come by to see what's happening and to provide support?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNo gymnastics required.Quote:
Originally Posted by nunbeater
Officer #1 pulls over a car normally (in this case, a cell phone user while driving).
Officer #2 hears about this on the radio, knows he's close, comes over, and parks on the scene. Waits for the next car to pass in the right lane without substantially slowing down. As soon as it happens, jumps out and grabs them.
One ticket begets two.
Double $$$ for the county.
Easy to pull off because a lot of people aren't aware of this law and will happily pass by on the right, thinking they're obeying the law.
i've had multiple police cars involved in traffic stops a ton of times personally, and have to have seen it hundreds of times
I've never had it happen once in all the police stops in my life. Always been just one police car at my traffic stops, probably because I'm a harmless-looking white guy in very routine traffic infractions.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakehasn't it been standard practice since forever that if one police car pulls someone over, a second available car in the area will come by to see what's happening and to provide support?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
i've had multiple police cars involved in traffic stops a ton of times personally, and have to have seen it hundreds of times
Usually this only happens if there is reason to provide the support -- like the belief that the stop might be dangerous or turn dangerous. Pulling over some Vegas tourist using a cell phone while driving isn't exactly likely to become a stop needing additional backup.
The biggest indicator that this was a trap was that the second police car was positioned all ready to jump out and grab me. It's not like I went by and there was a pause while the second officer said, "Hey, that guy shouldn't be doing 69 in that lane while we're here", and then there was a delay before he chased after me.
The second I went by, he was all ready to jump and get me, and of course he had his radar gun on and knew my exact speed at the time I passed.
Druff, knowing how grieved you are over this matter, I decided to contact the police here in a Midwest state that I’m driving through to give them the heads-up that you are a law-abiding citizen who should only be given a warning if you happen to break a decade-plus-old traffic law here.
Can’t say how effective this plea with them will be, but I’m doing my part to keep you safe from unfair traffic tickets.
Peace out...
By definition this is not a trap unless you consider life to be a trap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNo gymnastics required.Quote:
Originally Posted by nunbeater
Officer #1 pulls over a car normally (in this case, a cell phone user while driving).
Officer #2 hears about this on the radio, knows he's close, comes over, and parks on the scene. Waits for the next car to pass in the right lane without substantially slowing down. As soon as it happens, jumps out and grabs them.
One ticket begets two.
Double $$$ for the county.
Easy to pull off because a lot of people aren't aware of this law and will happily pass by on the right, thinking they're obeying the law.
Random pull over......random right? You agree that the cell phone violation was not planned.
Okay, so you're thinking second cop immediately sees an opportunity for a
roaming trap. See if the judge doesn't smile when you mention the roaming trap.
Speaking of random, the second cop didn't have a radar gun out(can you believe it) and you just happened to be the only driver that didn't move to the left or slow to a safe speed.
It's not just about drivers swerving into the breakdown lane. Anyone disabled or pulled over, while outside their vehicle, might lean into the driving lane. Having it clear avoids any chance of fatality or injury.
I can't believe this thread continues to grow.
A. It's the law, abide by it or get a ticket (or move elsewhere)
B. It's just plain common courtesy to move over for police, broken down cars, etc.
If you're on a 3 lane highway, you not being in the right-most lane will definitely save lives. I don't care if you're going 70 and move over in front of people doing 80 in the middle lane. It's still a +EV play.
If the idiot doing 80 doesn't either move over himself or slow down then they need to re-learn how to drive.
Is this the most one-sided thread against Druff ever?
It's actually not, but the people on my side are mostly not willing to keep posting here and arguing with all of the people fervently insisting I'm wrong. There's even a few people who have said they got basically the same ticket (and feel the same way I do).Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
It's a lot more dangerous than you think to be substantially slower than other traffic in your lane.Quote:
Originally Posted by simpdog
Drivers which come up on you will be frustrated and abruptly weave around you, sometimes clipping you and causing a spinout. There's also the issue of you happening to choose to move lanes yourself while one of these cars is attempting to get by, resulting in a collision where neither was expecting the other car to move. This is why it's generally suggested to drive "the speed of traffic", even if it's above the speed limit, because of the vastly increased dangers by being slower than the traffic in your lane. Alternately, it's the law to move over to the right if that's the case, as you're out of the way of the faster traffic.
(My court defense, in fact is going to involve the true claim that I moved over to the right for safety reasons, and wasn't aware it was the law to slow down that much below the speed limit when passing by on the right if otherwise driving safely.)
As I already mentioned, my father witnessed firsthand a situation where an accident like the above killed someone.
I believe if you could run a simulation a billion times of me staying in the center lane during that 0.5 mile stretch, and another billion times of me moving to the right, you'd find more accidents and more fatalities with me in the center.
I would venture to guess that VERY FEW of the side-of-the-road deaths have occurred at the hands of drivers who are neither distracted, drunk, nor tired, especially during the day.
This is why law enforcement will not release data proving that this law is working, even after more than a decade of it on the books in many places.
I'll ask you naysayers this:
Why do you believe I was in the right lane?
Do you think I saw the cop up there and decided, "Hey, you know what? Fuck them. I'm going to be a complete asshole and go right by them and freak them out!"
Or do you honestly believe I felt uncomfortable in the center lane going 70, and moved over because I felt it was safest?
I think that's why we have certain people in this thread trying to doubt my story as to why I moved to the right -- because acknowledging that I did it for safety reasons mostly kills their argument that being in the right lane at the time was unsafe.
Good luck to you as a highway driver if you don't think it's dangerous to be substantially slower than most driving in your lane.
This is from a highway study in Texas, regarding the chance of being in an accident based upon your speed:
https://www.motorists.org/wp-content...eed-limits.jpg
Yes, it's from 1990, but as far as this is concerned, nothing has changed.
Notice that you're least likely to be in an accident if you drive between average speed and 7 mph ABOVE average speed.
But look what happens when you drive below average speed. Going just 10 mph BELOW brings your accident chances to about the same as driving 15 mph ABOVE average speed! Going 15mph below substantially increases your accident chances even more.
When I was driving 70, I was at least 10 mph below the average speed at the time, perhaps even more like 12-15 mph.
Thus, it was dangerous, just as I perceived, and the safest place to be was the right lane, where everyone would be expecting me to be slow, and cars wouldn't have to weave around to pass me.
The dangers of slow highway driving are poorly understood by most, as people typically believe slower = safer when it comes to driving.
This thread jogged my memory, and caused me to look up a ticket I got in Indiana in 2007 - couldn't remember if it was for speeding or this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey GuyHe actually made a conscious decision to move over closer to the traffic stop for some unknown reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1marley1
This law has existed in Canada for as long as I can remember. Anybody who doesn't slow down or pull over would be considered an asshole on the same level as someone passing a line of traffic then trying to merge at the front of the line because of the obvious lane closure causing the long line of traffic to begin with.
I find it hard to believe that you've been driving all these years & have never pulled over or seen anybody pull over away from police or emergency vehicles with lights flashing. I've rented a car in the USA on 4 separate trips(3 in Vegas & once in Phoenix) & drove no more then 400 miles total & have pulled over & seen others pull over on at least 2 occasions in this scenario.
There's also a law here in Canada, & I'm sure in the US that if you meet an emergency vehicle with lights flashing on a 2 lane hiway you're supposed to slow down & pull over so don't get caught with that one either.
Just look at this as a $198 driving lesson.
edit: BTW you're not prohibited from driving in the right lane but you need to slow the fuck down. It doesn't say slow down "if possible".
It was for the same chickenshit offense, but it was also late December on bad icy roads and I made the conscious decision NOT to go in the left lane, as it was slick and traffic was steady. I made my case to the podunk cop and vividly remember that he said nothing - just handed to me and walked away.
It was on a 10 hour drive home from school, and around the holidays so I just let it go.
What I just realized: I never paid it! I still owe the state of Indiana $163 and change. I've gotten licensed in three different states since and it has never shown up on any check.
What would Druff do here?
I would take the Bill Clinton approach: "Don't ask, don't tell!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy JoeThis thread jogged my memory, and caused me to look up a ticket I got in Indiana in 2007 - couldn't remember if it was for speeding or this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Guy
It was for the same chickenshit offense, but it was also late December on bad icy roads and I made the conscious decision NOT to go in the left lane, as it was slick and traffic was steady. I made my case to the podunk cop and vicidly remember that he said nothing - just handed to me and walked away.
It was on a 10 hour drive home from school, and around holidays so I just let it go.
What I just realized: I never paid it! I still owe the state of Indiana $163 and change. I've gotten licensed in three different states since and it has never shown up on any check.
What would Druff do here?
If they never came looking for the $163, and it's been 10 years, and you've gotten licensed in 3 different states since, somehow it just vanished. Even Indiana probably doesn't realize it anymore.
Almost all states cooperate now and share moving violation info, and you won't be able to get a license in a different state with unpaid tickets in another state. Since that hasn't happened, it probably vanished somehow.
A number of years ago one of those awful speed cameras caught me "speeding" in a really dirty spot where they decreased the speed limit right before you're about to get to a freeway onramp. I was in a rental car, and was driving in a different state where I had never been licensed (not California or Nevada, obviously). I knew the rental car company would give up my info, and indeed they did. I got a letter from the rental car company informing that they received contact from that jurisdiction, and that they had given my full info.
I braced and waited for the ticket to come, but it never did.
Fearing it got lost in the mail, I went to the website of that jurisdiction about a month later. Nothing.
I eventually called the jurisdiction and said that I thought I might have gotten a camera ticket and it never reached me in the mail. I gave them my name, nothing came up. I asked if it was possible it wasn't entered yet, and they said no. They said I simply was not in the system for having any kind of violation.
I have gotten licensed twice since this happened and it never showed up, either.
Something must have fucked up between the rental car company sending my info and the jurisdiction receiving it -- maybe it got lost somehow?
Anyway, let's just say I was happy for once that incompetence occurred in a matter involving me.
Yes, I think I'll ignore.
2007 was my bad degenerate year at college. I figured it came and my parents just paid it, but it's still outstanding along with a speeding ticket (lol).
I'm surprised that it didn't come up - I've since been relicensed in North Carolina after a 2009 DUI (smh), in Wyoming in 2013 and now in Oregon since 2015. Nothing on insurance as well.
The court website lists my parents address from two homes ago. Perhaps got lucky for once.
So it's still showing up on the website? I thought it just vanished entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
If it's still showing up, it can eventually bite you one day, but still the best play is to do nothing and to only act if you hear something about it, or if you get stuck trying to renew or get licensed. It could be caught in some holding pattern where it's there but kind of dormant.
Yet they want you out of the right lane for safety reasons and you’re completely discounting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yes, "safety reasons" they refuse to prove are effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Yet they want you out of the right lane for safety reasons and you’re completely discounting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'll stick with the proven safety reasons regarding moving out of the way of faster traffic.
My bad; I went to look up someone who made an cryptic post and went to see if my old ticket would be there; it did, and as unpaid/pending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffSo it's still showing up on the website? I thought it just vanished entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
If it's still showing up, it can eventually bite you one day, but still the best play is to do nothing and to only act if you hear something about it, or if you get stuck trying to renew or get licensed. It could be caught in some holding pattern where it's there but kind of dormant.
Again, got license reinstated in NC in 2009, and got licensed in WY and OR in 2013 and 2015 respectively when I moved there.
Also nothing when I switched insurance in 2013.
Additionally was stopped in WA earlier this year and was mercifully let go with a warning, but they took my license back to the car to look up etc.
I know nothing about Indiana, but it's possible that 2007 was just before they started sharing info with other states, and somehow their integration screwed up and didn't bring over old tickets to other states.
Just a guess.
It may just be spinning in the system without any kind of action, and it may stay that way for eternity. Also, if it hasn't changed itself into a warrant or a higher bail amount after all this time, that's another reason to believe it's stuck in some way.
Honestly this would have been the point where tyde swoops in calls todge a mommas boy for some reason and this thing really takes off
Druff, in a vacuum, which do you believe a pulled over police officer or stranded motorist is more likely to be struck or have their vehicle struck by? A car traveling in the right lane or the center lane?
You were in the middle lane. Faster cars can easily pass you in the left lane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffYes, "safety reasons" they refuse to prove are effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
I'll stick with the proven safety reasons regarding moving out of the way of faster traffic.
I don't doubt you were not aware of this law, but it is YOUR responsibility to be aware of new laws. No matter how much you say otherwise.
Honestly, I believe you were in the right lane "appearing innocent" as you were more concerned with getting a speeding ticket then anything safety related. You admit you were speeding prior to seeing the flashing lights.
And now you're poorly arguing the law is garbage/not safe.... SHOW ME THE BODIES!
Druff you’re worried about people going faster than you.
How about the cop going 0 and you going 70?
He's much safer with Druff getting as close as possible rather than staying further away based on Druffs decades of driving experienceQuote:
Originally Posted by simpdog
Could you explain the bolded sentence above? What does a parking violation have to do with what you did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThat's exactly the defense I was planning upon using.Quote:
Originally Posted by RS_
But I'm guessing this is going to end up a reduction and a change to a parking violation, which while better than a $198 moving violation, still sucks.
Are you going to argue the cop was improperly parked.
Also how much money will you save if you're charge is reduced?
Also please post the date and location for your hearing. Seats may be hard to come by
but that's kind of the point, there is no trap. Both cops are literally out in the open, no one is hiding behind a billboard on a slope waiting for someone to drive by - you act like this was premeditated but if you would have taken a different route it's possible that no one would have gotten pulled over at all. Cops pulling over to assist other cops on a traffic stop is super standard. Hell when I got extradited to a different county for unpaid traffic tickets (which were also the most bullshit tickets of my life) the cop taking me pulled over for some random cop that had some random ass person pulled over for who the fuck knows what. They weren't in the same department at all from what I could tell but he still stopped and helped him. I probably would have found the camaraderie touching if I hadn't wanted everyone to fucking die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNo gymnastics required.Quote:
Originally Posted by nunbeater
Officer #1 pulls over a car normally (in this case, a cell phone user while driving).
Officer #2 hears about this on the radio, knows he's close, comes over, and parks on the scene. Waits for the next car to pass in the right lane without substantially slowing down. As soon as it happens, jumps out and grabs them.
One ticket begets two.
Double $$$ for the county.
Easy to pull off because a lot of people aren't aware of this law and will happily pass by on the right, thinking they're obeying the law.
And moving over for vehicles on the road side has been common sense for fucking years if not decades. I mean even if I see someone just changing their tire I'll move the fuck over to give them some space. "Slowing down" to 69 mph (lol) really doesn't do a fucking thing for anyone stuck on the side of the highway if you stay in the right lane. Honestly in my experience not keeping with the flow of traffic is dangerous too but why not just stay with the flow of traffic until you pass the cops and then move to the right? What exactly was so dangerous about your situation?
Not sure how it works in Canada, but in the US, parking violations don't go on your driving record. So once you pay the ticket, it's like it never happened. Moving violations are points against your record, and greatly affects your insurance rates. Also, if you get too many points, your license gets in jeopardy.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesCould you explain the bolded sentence above? What does a parking violation have to do with what you did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Are you going to argue the cop was improperly parked.
Also how much money will you save if you're charge is reduced?
Also please post the date and location for your hearing. Seats may be hard to come by
Therefore, it's very valuable to get a moving violation changed to a parking violation, even if the fine remains the same.
A trap doesn't mean the cop is hiding. A trap means that they artificially engineer a situation in order to catch "violations". For example, a speed trap is often something with an artificially low speed limit where they aggressively enforce the area, knowing that many people will violate it (knowingly or unknowingly). If the second cop came over specifically to wait for the next guy to go by in the right lane to ticket him, then yes, it's a bullshit trap.Quote:
Originally Posted by nunbeaterbut that's kind of the point, there is no trap. Both cops are literally out in the open, no one is hiding behind a billboard on a slope waiting for someone to drive by - you act like this was premeditated but if you would have taken a different route it's possible that no one would have gotten pulled over at all. Cops pulling over to assist other cops on a traffic stop is super standard. Hell when I got extradited to a different county for unpaid traffic tickets (which were also the most bullshit tickets of my life) the cop taking me pulled over for some random cop that had some random ass person pulled over for who the fuck knows what. They weren't in the same department at all from what I could tell but he still stopped and helped him. I probably would have found the camaraderie touching if I hadn't wanted everyone to fucking die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And moving over for vehicles on the road side has been common sense for fucking years if not decades. I mean even if I see someone just changing their tire I'll move the fuck over to give them some space. "Slowing down" to 69 mph (lol) really doesn't do a fucking thing for anyone stuck on the side of the highway if you stay in the right lane. Honestly in my experience not keeping with the flow of traffic is dangerous too but why not just stay with the flow of traffic until you pass the cops and then move to the right? What exactly was so dangerous about your situation?
Anyway, I was in the right lane early because I detected they were using radar, and it's hard to tell exactly where they're going to get you with that. So it's safer just to slow down in that spot -- better safe (from a ticket) than sorry. Not that I was speeding much before that, but I slowed down to 70 to be sure.
I moved to the right lane because plenty of cars were still zooming by, and I didn't want to be in their way and possibly cause an accident. Seriously, that was why.
Someone here suggested that I was in the right lane just to "look innocent". That's bullshit. I don't need to be in the right lane to look innocent. Driving 69 in a 70 zone is good enough. You don't need to "look" anything.
I was in the right lane for safety reasons.
This will be your biggest challenge in court. The safety of an officer is important in the eyes of the law. You said it yourself, if the officer came with the intent of ticketing a right lane driver. How can you prove the intent of an officer. It's his word against yours and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Did you see several other cars being pulled over for unsafe motoring?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffA trap doesn't mean the cop is hiding. A trap means that they artificially engineer a situation in order to catch "violations". For example, a speed trap is often something with an artificially low speed limit where they aggressively enforce the area, knowing that many people will violate it (knowingly or unknowingly). If the second cop came over specifically to wait for the next guy to go by in the right lane to ticket him, then yes, it's a bullshit trap.Quote:
Originally Posted by nunbeater
Anyway, I was in the right lane early because I detected they were using radar, and it's hard to tell exactly where they're going to get you with that. So it's safer just to slow down in that spot -- better safe (from a ticket) than sorry. Not that I was speeding much before that, but I slowed down to 70 to be sure.
I moved to the right lane because plenty of cars were still zooming by, and I didn't want to be in their way and possibly cause an accident. Seriously, that was why.
Someone here suggested that I was in the right lane just to "look innocent". That's bullshit. I don't need to be in the right lane to look innocent. Driving 69 in a 70 zone is good enough. You don't need to "look" anything.
I was in the right lane for safety reasons.
^ This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffIt's actually not, but the people on my side are mostly not willing to keep posting here and arguing with all of the people fervently insisting I'm wrong. There's even a few people who have said they got basically the same ticket (and feel the same way I do).Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTickle
I'm not going to re-read through all this crap, but from my understanding -- 1) Druff did what he thought was the safest thing to do in the given situation (cars flying by), and everyone damn well knows there are cars going 85-90+ on that road, especially weaving in and out of other cars. 2) Cop told Druff something along the lines of him believing Druff was driving safely, or something like that.
As far as I'm concerned, that should be the end of it. Give Druff a warning and log it in the system and let him go on his way. The primary purpose of driving laws is...or rather SHOULD BE...about safety. I obviously wasn't there, but doing what Druff did could very well have been the safest thing to do. Should he have slowed down to 60 or 50? Possibly. But again, slowing down significantly like that (with other cars flying by) could be even less safe, since it's likely to cause more people to weave around him or potentially have them veer into the right shoulder if the car(s) behind Druff can't slow down quickly enough.
Above all -- laws be damned, you should do whatever is the most safe.
Inagree with most of what you said here, but there may be an institutional reason why the LEO gave Druff a ticket versus just a formal warning: Per the electronic highway signs, that stretch of road is a “Zero Tolerance” zone. The policy of the police department monitoring that zone may have a policy that requires the LEOs who stop motorists for a violation to give them the higher form of correction (ticket).Quote:
Originally Posted by RS_^ This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'm not going to re-read through all this crap, but from my understanding -- 1) Druff did what he thought was the safest thing to do in the given situation (cars flying by), and everyone damn well knows there are cars going 85-90+ on that road, especially weaving in and out of other cars. 2) Cop told Druff something along the lines of him believing Druff was driving safely, or something like that.
As far as I'm concerned, that should be the end of it. Give Druff a warning and log it in the system and let him go on his way. The primary purpose of driving laws is...or rather SHOULD BE...about safety. I obviously wasn't there, but doing what Druff did could very well have been the safest thing to do. Should he have slowed down to 60 or 50? Possibly. But again, slowing down significantly like that (with other cars flying by) could be even less safe, since it's likely to cause more people to weave around him or potentially have them veer into the right shoulder if the car(s) behind Druff can't slow down quickly enough.
Above all -- laws be damned, you should do whatever is the most safe.
The "institutional reason" I was given a ticket instead of a warning was because the local government wants more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by MumblesBadlyInagree with most of what you said here, but there may be an institutional reason why the LEO gave Druff a ticket versus just a formal warning: Per the electronic highway signs, that stretch of road is a “Zero Tolerance” zone. The policy of the police department monitoring that zone may have a policy that requires the LEOs who stop motorists for a violation to give them the higher form of correction (ticket).Quote:
Originally Posted by RS_
If you have a clean record court will reduce to a parking fee which saves you points on your license and is less then the original violation. Off course your record has to be pristine. I have not had a ticket for20 years and got going thru a red light reduced to parking ticket. I went on orange btw so it still stung to pay 120 but beat insurance going up with speeding ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesCould you explain the bolded sentence above? What does a parking violation have to do with what you did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Are you going to argue the cop was improperly parked.
Also how much money will you save if you're charge is reduced?
Also please post the date and location for your hearing. Seats may be hard to come by
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKRIZZOIf you have a clean record court will reduce to a parking fee which saves you points on your license and is less then the original violation. Off course your record has to be pristine. I have not had a ticket for20 years and got going thru a red light reduced to parking ticket. I went on orange btw so it still stung to pay 120 but beat insurance going up with speeding ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
Druff clearly has a pristine driving record. I mean he obviously has never done anything wrong.
Actually my driving record is pristine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yep, we already knew that. You’ve clearly only ever been caught in revenue traps.
I mean really I doubt you’ve ever been wrong.