CityJournal.com: Citation Nation -
How America turned into a gigantic speed-trap. (https://www.city-journal.org/html/citation-nation-15093.html)
QuoteIn April 2013, when California resident Derick Neal rolled through a red light, it was no surprise that he received a ticket. What did surprise Neal was how much his mistake would cost him. While the base rate for his infraction was $100, he ultimately was on the hook for nearly $500 by the time state assessment fees ($100), county assessment fees ($70), court construction fees ($50), emergency medical-services fees ($20), and more got tacked on.
QuoteNeal's ticket was no isolated incident. Local governments increasingly are using tickets, fines, and fees to generate income, rather than to deter crime or enhance public safety. The funds derived from these sources are treated as part of the annual revenue base, and sometimes even built into governments' budget baselines. This phenomenon, which has been dubbed "taxation by citation," has troubling implications. While most citizens understand that penalties and fines are key components of effective law enforcement and public-safety protocols, few are likely aware that governments use citations as a means to enact stealth tax increases.
Yes, of course.
The reason for so many tacked on "fees" and "court costs" is that many states require actual fines go to the school board. This was designed to take the profit motive out of police work, but no court has had the balls to say "no a 'fee' is part of the fine, it goes to the school board".
Police should simply never ever never be used to make money. Never. It takes police time away from serious useful work. It teaches disrespect for the police (because revenue traffic work is UNDESERVING of respect). It corrupts (because there will always be the insider that gets off, and cops in most places are allowed to sell these wink wink nod nod stickers that we all know are get out of jail free cards, imagine if your kids teacher sold you a sticker not that it wink wink would affect her grades.) It makes police hypocrites (because I'm pretty sure 99.9% of police have never violated serious criminal laws, and that the same number violates idiotic traffic laws they turn around and enforce daily.) It empower police and courthouse in an improper way (maybe it is a "random tax" and maybe not, maybe you were DWB, or maybe it was that gay equal sign sticker, or maybe it was your Trump sitcker or your Auburn alumni sticker.) And it creates a us vs. them mentality between police and socitety.
It simply should end. Everywhere and for all time.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 10, 2017, 09:31:04 AM
Yes, of course.
The reason for so many tacked on "fees" and "court costs" is that many states require actual fines go to the school board. This was designed to take the profit motive out of police work, but no court has had the balls to say "no a 'fee' is part of the fine, it goes to the school board".
Of course not. Not when the court system takes its own cut of the fees, in California (where the courts constantly complain about being under-funded) and elsewhere.
More breaking news: sky is blue!!! and milk is white!!!!
Stay tuned for more updates.
Quote from: oscar on April 10, 2017, 09:43:07 AM
Of course not. Not when the court system takes its own cut of the fees, in California (where the courts constantly complain about being under-funded) and elsewhere.
Court costs should be proportional to the actual time spent by court employees on the case in question. The charging of a random tax of upwards of $100 for something that actually takes a few cents worth of court time is illigitmate.
As is 99.99% of traffic enforcement.
Port Orford OR is a small city and big speed trap on Oregon's south coast (US 101). Maybe things have changed but the city budget used to include receiving $160K a year from traffic violations. Needless to say the cops sat on the main drag during the day and did practically nothing at night, which let the criminals have free reign.
In my area (Coos Bay/North Bend OR), the police are too busy with calls for service to spend time running radar all over the place. Traffic flows along nicely with 5 MPH over seeming to be where the public settles in. Speed limits are not unreasonably low either. We're still overrun with criminals though since the county jail only has about 50 beds and they're mostly taken. We can't win for losing on that front...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: SP Cook on April 10, 2017, 11:05:56 AM
Quote from: oscar on April 10, 2017, 09:43:07 AM
Of course not. Not when the court system takes its own cut of the fees, in California (where the courts constantly complain about being under-funded) and elsewhere.
Court costs should be proportional to the actual time spent by court employees on the case in question. The charging of a random tax of upwards of $100 for something that actually takes a few cents worth of court time is illigitmate.
As is 99.99% of traffic enforcement.
I'm not defending using policing as a revenue generating service, but the idea that any part of the court process actually costs just cents is ludicrous. Nothing about due process is inexpensive.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 10, 2017, 09:31:04 AM
Yes, of course.
The reason for so many tacked on "fees" and "court costs" is that many states require actual fines go to the school board. This was designed to take the profit motive out of police work, but no court has had the balls to say "no a 'fee' is part of the fine, it goes to the school board".
Police should simply never ever never be used to make money. Never. It takes police time away from serious useful work. It teaches disrespect for the police (because revenue traffic work is UNDESERVING of respect). It corrupts (because there will always be the insider that gets off, and cops in most places are allowed to sell these wink wink nod nod stickers that we all know are get out of jail free cards, imagine if your kids teacher sold you a sticker not that it wink wink would affect her grades.) It makes police hypocrites (because I'm pretty sure 99.9% of police have never violated serious criminal laws, and that the same number violates idiotic traffic laws they turn around and enforce daily.)
Virginia, at least for tickets issued by the VSP, as well as tickets issued by county and municipal officers for violations of
state traffic laws, send nearly all of the revenue to the Literacy Fund, where it is used to purchase school textbooks and library books. The only exception is revenue from truck overweight tickets, where the money goes to VDOT for pavement and bridge repairs.
Unfortunately, Virginia allows local governments to write their own traffic ordinances, which then means that the revenue from those tickets is used however the local board of supervisors or municipal council desires.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on April 10, 2017, 11:21:37 AM
I'm not defending using policing as a revenue generating service, but the idea that any part of the court process actually costs just cents is ludicrous. Nothing about due process is inexpensive.
Going to a window and giving cash to some drone clerk is all the "due process" that 99.9% of these traffic offense cases get. There is no hearing, no jury, no involvement by any judicial officer (even a non-lawyer magistrate or justice of the peace) no involvement by the prosecutor, nothing. Just a poor random tax victim going to a window and paying up.
In fact, several states have (Unconstitutionally, BTW) come up with the legal theory that traffic cases are not really "criminal" and thus the random tax victim is not entitled to "due process".
The idea that that costs the court $1, let along $100, in its time is rediculious.
Plus, many states are now charging simply to go to court regardless of whether you're found guilty or not, which is insane. One should not have to pay a cent if they are found not guilty.
This is part of the American mentality. It has a lot of facets and is really fascinating. Part of it is that Americans are law-and-order people. They like tough punitive laws and like to see offenders suffer. Whether it's just or does any good is beside the point. They hold fair trials as sacred, but don't actually want trials to be fair because then it might not end with a conviction. They want laws that regulate everything, while complaining about the loss of personal freedom. They like laws that are so restrictive they're nearly impossible to comply with and then they disrespect those laws because they're absurd. They hold police in high regard and also complain about them doing their jobs enforcing absurd laws. The American attitude about law seems to be a combination of child-like simplicity in principle, but cynical and defiant in practice. They feel like good citizens by supporting strict laws, and then feel entitled to ignore those laws because they're too strict.
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
It got pulled over and cited.
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
Whether a $500 ticket or owning that vehicle, the punishment does not fit the crime.
I'm surprised there wasn't a Ford Infraction or Pontiac Sentence.
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
And I expected it to be about Wikipedia.
Quote from: formulanone on April 10, 2017, 06:40:02 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
I'm surprised there wasn't a Ford Infraction or Pontiac Sentence.
Actually there was an Edsel (Ford) Citation before Chevy used the name. I assume the reference was to the racehorse. Edsel also made a Pacer, which AMC recycled for that malpractice of a car and a Ranger, which Ford itself used for its ultracrap small pickups.
I'm not old enough to remember Edsel, but I sure do remember the Chevy Citation. Hyped as "the first Chevy of the 80s" in 1979, it was, in my lifetime the first time I noticed GM's eternal ad theme of "well the car we sold you last time was a piece of crap, but NOW!!!"
GM has been telling the same lie for 35 years.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 11, 2017, 09:17:32 AM
Quote from: formulanone on April 10, 2017, 06:40:02 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
I'm surprised there wasn't a Ford Infraction or Pontiac Sentence.
Actually there was an Edsel (Ford) Citation before Chevy used the name. I assume the reference was to the racehorse. Edsel also made a Pacer, which AMC recycled for that malpractice of a car and a Ranger, which Ford itself used for its ultracrap small pickups.
I'm not old enough to remember Edsel, but I sure do remember the Chevy Citation. Hyped as "the first Chevy of the 80s" in 1979, it was, in my lifetime the first time I noticed GM's eternal ad theme of "well the car we sold you last time was a piece of crap, but NOW!!!"
GM has been telling the same lie for 35 years.
Ranger was also used on full-sized Ford pickups in the Seventies. It was a top of the line package for those times. Today it would be no better than the base model XL...LOL! Pickups of today are fancier than Cadillacs and Lincolns used to be and full of enough performance to make a classic muscle car driver take notice when you buy the appropriate editions.
Rick
Wow. What an infuriating article.
I think it just gave illinois legislators some ideas.
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
Which is actually named after a horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_(horse)). As was the Edsel.
Quote from: Brandon on April 11, 2017, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
Which is actually named after a horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_(horse)). As was the Edsel.
On second thought, "Chrysler Tri-Jet" does have a rather future-retro feel to it.
Quote from: formulanone on April 11, 2017, 01:23:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 11, 2017, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
Which is actually named after a horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_(horse)). As was the Edsel.
On second thought, "Chrysler Tri-Jet" does have a rather future-retro feel to it.
I always thought Edsel was the name of one of the Ford sons (& heirs); it's likely any horse connected to the family was named after the kid!
Quote from: sparker on April 11, 2017, 04:31:17 PM
Quote from: formulanone on April 11, 2017, 01:23:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 11, 2017, 11:11:12 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
Which is actually named after a horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_(horse)). As was the Edsel.
On second thought, "Chrysler Tri-Jet" does have a rather future-retro feel to it.
I always thought Edsel was the name of one of the Ford sons (& heirs); it's likely any horse connected to the family was named after the kid!
Edsel was the name of Edsel Ford, Henry's son. The horse was Citation, winner of the 1948 Triple Crown. Hence the Edsel Citation and the Chevrolet Citation.
Quote from: Brandon on April 11, 2017, 04:40:20 PM
Edsel was the name of Edsel Ford, Henry's son. The horse was Citation, winner of the 1948 Triple Crown. Hence the Edsel Citation and the Chevrolet Citation.
Don't forget about the Harman-Kardon Citation line of audio amplification!
Quote from: vdeane on April 10, 2017, 02:26:22 PM
Plus, many states are now charging simply to go to court regardless of whether you're found guilty or not, which is insane. One should not have to pay a cent if they are found not guilty.
I agree. Courts should be funded out of general funds (in other words, broad-based taxes like income, real property and sales taxes), and should not be charging for their services.
I can see higher-level courts (as in state and federal appellate courts) charging filing fees (but waiving them for people that cannot afford same).
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
Depends on the state. Some states call their traffic tickets
summonses, others call them
citations, and I suppose there are still other words and phrases (
notice of infraction?) used to describe tickets out there.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2017, 09:53:41 PM
I can see higher-level courts (as in state and federal appellate courts) charging filing fees (but waiving them for people that cannot afford same).
The U.S. Supreme Court does that, and also waives some other costly filing requirements upon proof of indigency. However, it's no pushover -- the "undercard" items on its order lists often include denials of fee waivers.
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
I thought it was going to criticize people's desire for high-quality articles to back up facts in light of recent political events.
Quote from: oscar on April 11, 2017, 10:26:37 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2017, 09:53:41 PM
I can see higher-level courts (as in state and federal appellate courts) charging filing fees (but waiving them for people that cannot afford same).
The U.S. Supreme Court does that, and also waives some other costly filing requirements upon proof of indigency. However, it's no pushover -- the "undercard" items on its order lists often include denials of fee waivers.
The federal district and appellate courts all have provisions for proceeding "in forma pauperis." In addition to waiving fees, they allow IFP parties to file fewer copies of documents, among other things. (Even in this era of electronic filing, you still have to file multiple paper copies of your brief.)
IFP applications are reviewed pretty strictly in part because historically the status has been abused by prisoners filing "recreational litigation" just to cause trouble. A classic example of this sort of thing brought by a prisoner who paid his filing fees, and thus initially avoided the frivolity review associated with an IFP application, is discussed in
Washington v. Alaimo (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19962329934FSupp1395_12122/WASHINGTON%20v.%20ALAIMO), 934 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Ga. 1996). The opinion's memorable first paragraph reads as follows (alterations in original). The judge goes on to discuss the many other bizarre motions this prisoner filed:
QuoteOn April 5, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this Court should not impose Rule 11 sanctions upon him for filing a motion for improper purposes. The motion which Plaintiff filed was entitled "Motion to Kiss My Ass" (Doc. 107) in which he moved "all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother fucker you." This Court gave Plaintiff until April 25, 1996, to respond and specifically warned: "Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case." Plaintiff has appealed the show-cause order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As the April 5 Order was not a final order, Plaintiff's appeal is an interlocutory appeal and, as such, this Court retains jurisdiction over the parties and matters in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). As of the date indicated below, Plaintiff has not responded to the show-cause order. Therefore, this Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the above-captioned case for Plaintiff's complete disregard of and noncompliance with an explicit court order. FED.R.Civ.P. 41(b); LOCAL RULE 41.1(b); see Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that district court's power to dismiss action under Rule 41(b) for failure to obey court order is inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders). All outstanding motions are hereby rendered MOOT.
Later, regarding IFP status, the court noted:
QuoteSince his commitment to the state prison system, Plaintiff has become a frequent litigant within the federal courts seeking relief through the auspices of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk of Court for the Superior Court of Chatham County has also informed this Court that Plaintiff is frequently suing for various forms of relief through the state court system as well. What distinguishes Plaintiff from most prisoner litigants in federal courts is that he pays his filing fee rather than submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It has come to the attention of this Court that Plaintiff's litigation practice is largely, if not entirely, underwritten by the Federal Treasury as he periodically receives a substantial check for veterans' disability benefits. By paying his filing fee, Plaintiff has thus far avoided the filter of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) frivolity review. As a result, patently frivolous lawsuits have languished in this district longer than would otherwise be warranted with other prisoner litigants.
Quote from: kalvado on April 10, 2017, 10:35:03 AM
More breaking news: sky is blue!!! and milk is white!!!!
Stay tuned for more updates.
Water is wet! The Pope is Catholic! :D
Quote from: Bickendan on April 10, 2017, 04:26:17 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
It got pulled over and cited.
:-D For falsely calling itself a "car."
Quote from: oscar on April 11, 2017, 10:26:37 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2017, 09:53:41 PM
I can see higher-level courts (as in state and federal appellate courts) charging filing fees (but waiving them for people that cannot afford same).
The U.S. Supreme Court does that, and also waives some other costly filing requirements upon proof of indigency. However, it's no pushover -- the "undercard" items on its order lists often include denials of fee waivers.
Actually, getting the Supremes to review a matter that is within their discretion to reject is impressive on its own, and the fee of a few hundred dollars (at least that's what it was years ago) is remarkably cheap.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 12, 2017, 07:26:18 AM
Quote from: oscar on April 11, 2017, 10:26:37 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2017, 09:53:41 PM
I can see higher-level courts (as in state and federal appellate courts) charging filing fees (but waiving them for people that cannot afford same).
The U.S. Supreme Court does that, and also waives some other costly filing requirements upon proof of indigency. However, it's no pushover -- the "undercard" items on its order lists often include denials of fee waivers.
The federal district and appellate courts all have provisions for proceeding "in forma pauperis." In addition to waiving fees, they allow IFP parties to file fewer copies of documents, among other things. (Even in this era of electronic filing, you still have to file multiple paper copies of your brief.)
IFP applications are reviewed pretty strictly in part because historically the status has been abused by prisoners filing "recreational litigation" just to cause trouble. A classic example of this sort of thing brought by a prisoner who paid his filing fees, and thus initially avoided the frivolity review associated with an IFP application, is discussed in Washington v. Alaimo (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19962329934FSupp1395_12122/WASHINGTON%20v.%20ALAIMO), 934 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Ga. 1996). The opinion's memorable first paragraph reads as follows (alterations in original). The judge goes on to discuss the many other bizarre motions this prisoner filed:
QuoteOn April 5, 1996, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this Court should not impose Rule 11 sanctions upon him for filing a motion for improper purposes. The motion which Plaintiff filed was entitled "Motion to Kiss My Ass" (Doc. 107) in which he moved "all Americans at large and one corrupt Judge Smith [to] kiss my got [sic] damn ass sorry mother fucker you." This Court gave Plaintiff until April 25, 1996, to respond and specifically warned: "Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case." Plaintiff has appealed the show-cause order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As the April 5 Order was not a final order, Plaintiff's appeal is an interlocutory appeal and, as such, this Court retains jurisdiction over the parties and matters in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). As of the date indicated below, Plaintiff has not responded to the show-cause order. Therefore, this Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the above-captioned case for Plaintiff's complete disregard of and noncompliance with an explicit court order. FED.R.Civ.P. 41(b); LOCAL RULE 41.1(b); see Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding that district court's power to dismiss action under Rule 41(b) for failure to obey court order is inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders). All outstanding motions are hereby rendered MOOT.
Later, regarding IFP status, the court noted:
QuoteSince his commitment to the state prison system, Plaintiff has become a frequent litigant within the federal courts seeking relief through the auspices of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk of Court for the Superior Court of Chatham County has also informed this Court that Plaintiff is frequently suing for various forms of relief through the state court system as well. What distinguishes Plaintiff from most prisoner litigants in federal courts is that he pays his filing fee rather than submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It has come to the attention of this Court that Plaintiff's litigation practice is largely, if not entirely, underwritten by the Federal Treasury as he periodically receives a substantial check for veterans' disability benefits. By paying his filing fee, Plaintiff has thus far avoided the filter of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) frivolity review. As a result, patently frivolous lawsuits have languished in this district longer than would otherwise be warranted with other prisoner litigants.
Sounds like the judges involved in this got it right.
I suppose that someone in prison does not give up his or her disability payment if the crime for which they were imprisoned is not about those payments.
Quote from: hm insulators on April 12, 2017, 11:35:31 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 10, 2017, 04:26:17 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
It got pulled over and cited.
:-D For falsely calling itself a "car."
The Cadillac Cimarron, which IIRC was just a fancied-up Chevy Cavalier but looked a lot like the Citation was even worse (but another example of how screwed-up GM was in the 1980's).
The early 1980's Chevy Cavalier, for what it was, was not great but not terrible either - as long as it was not crashed.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 10, 2017, 08:34:26 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
And I expected it to be about Wikipedia.
:rofl: that's amazing
Burn in hell, MLA style guides!
Anyways yeah, the government's extortion of its own people is unfortunate and shameful. Though I find it's exacerbated in states that don't have adequate taxation. Looking at you, Indiana...Curse you for that speeding ticket in September 2015
Quote from: hm insulators on April 12, 2017, 11:35:31 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 10, 2017, 04:26:17 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
It got pulled over and cited.
:-D For falsely calling itself a "car."
My first car was a 1981 Citation. I liked the car. I paid $400 for it at a church yard sale (it had 57K original miles). I got 2 years & almost 70K miles out of it before I was rear ended by a high school kid driving a 1980 Volvo. The insurance company paid me $950 for it when they totalled it.
Quote from: cpzilliacus link=topic=19990.msg2
The Cadillac Cimarron, which IIRC was just a fancied-up Chevy Cavalier but looked a lot like the Citation was even worse (but another example of how screwed-up GM was in the 1980's).
You say that like the screwed-up period in GM history has a time limit. GM is, was, and always will be screwed-up.
The 82 Cimarron was among the most arrogant and customer disregarding of GM's legion of such cars. It was a "J body" one size below the "X body" such as the Citation. The previous "X body", which was a Chevy Nova, had been tricked out into the original Seville. Caddy passed on making a Caddy version of the next "X body" (the Citation) and went with a four door varriant of the huge Eldorado as the second generation Seville. This left Caddy with nothing to offer against their well-made competitors when gas prices shot up.
GM's answer was to take a Chevy Cavalier, check all the option boxes, toss on some faux wire rims and leather seats, and a Caddy grille and call it a "Cimarron". It was so bad that even GM would not admit it was really a Cadillac, prefering to call it "Cimarron by Cadillac", which made that year's ad slogan (Best of all, it's a Cadillac) have to be modified to "Best of all, it is made by Cadillac"
GM used the time (and used the people that fell for this charade) to develop the not as bad third generation Seville, which came out for 86 and the Cimarron quietly died after 88.
Now imagine if Cadillac's performance image from the 00's had been present when the Cimarron was being manufactured. V-6 turbo, AWD, handling package...it would have been just the ticket to go against the BMW 320i and Audi Quattro.
GM failed to be "all in" with the Fiero. Then along came Mazda with their Miata to show how it was supposed to be done.
Today any of the Big Three could be bought with the pocket change of a Silicon Valley giant. The times they are a'changin...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: cjk374 on April 14, 2017, 05:48:40 AM
Quote from: hm insulators on April 12, 2017, 11:35:31 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 10, 2017, 04:26:17 PM
Quote from: briantroutman on April 10, 2017, 03:52:27 PM
I opened this thread expecting to find a loving paean to the Chevy Citation.
It got pulled over and cited.
:-D For falsely calling itself a "car."
My first car was a 1981 Citation. I liked the car. I paid $400 for it at a church yard sale (it had 57K original miles). I got 2 years & almost 70K miles out of it before I was rear ended by a high school kid driving a 1980 Volvo. The insurance company paid me $950 for it when they totalled it.
Wow....same exact car, model year and price I paid for my first car too. Except my Citation had I think somewhere around 120K on it when I got it in '92, and those miles weren't kind to it. I had it in high school and the first 2 years of college before it was junk yard time. My friends and I had a great time with it though and we put a lot of miles on it in a short time. My favorite part was the rack and pinion locking up the wheel on me during turns every once in a while....good times. After that, I stepped up my game with a brown '79 Pinto wagon.