(I’m revising a short book called LeBron James Shirtless that I wrote back in June, and it gets way more interesting when I insert things about myself.

This went in randomly yesterday.)

My time writing this book might be better spent refurbishing the way traffic tickets are administered and processed.

This, because I’m watching the first night of the Democratic National Convention, and not one politician has addressed the crucial issue of me losing three hours in court to a no-right-on-red violation today.

With the understanding that this will all be irrelevant once the self-driving cars are in wide use somewhere around 2020…

OH NO A PROBLEM

I go into court, wait my turn, explain my last name isn’t spelled “Spaeta” (or pronounced spa-et-ay), and submit my plea of Not Guilty.

A close female associate is a lawyer, and she said I should do this, despite our mutual acknowledgement that I was 100% guilty.

(There was a sign at the light that said not to turn right on red, and that’s how I knew, and why I smirked at the red light as I spun my steering wheel with my elbow.

I used my elbow because I was also drinking water and texting and trying to hook my iPod up.)

As you may know, a Not Guilty plea sets a trial date, at which point you hope your ticketing officer doesn’t show up, and you get away free and clear.

Even if that didn’t happen, my female associate promised to go with me and get it down to a lesser violation. No points on my license, etc.

Anyway, after my plea, the bailiffs put me on their shoulders and carry me into another courtroom, where a prosecutor offers me this same “no points” lesser violation that was the goal all along.

I text my associate to confirm this is a good thing, and proceed to take the deal.

Here’s the thing: why does this little game exist wherein I can plea this down?

Keep in mind that this had nothing to do with a good driving record – every single Not Guilty person was being offered these deals. As far as I could tell, it was simply to clear these things off the books and save time for the courts.

It makes no sense to me. I was guilty. Had I been forced to pay the full fine – with points – I would’ve. That’s what I deserved.

Why gum up the system by offering these loopholes people know they can jump through? Without the tantalizing plea opportunity, I never would’ve had to go to court, saving time for them and me, AND they would’ve gotten the full fine that they’re entitled to.

HERE COMES A SOLUTION

How convenient would it be if police officers were authorized to allow you to make your plea of Guilty, Not Guilty, No Contest right there when you’ve been pulled over?

Guilty/No Contest: Your fine is assessed right there. Pay online, or via mail, or whatever. And you don’t have to call a phone number, like I had to with this ticket. I was on hold for 2 hours.

Not Guilty: Your ticket is submitted for a trial date, which you’ll receive via email or mail.

Interactive hologram magistrates (like an advanced version of this one in use at airports) will allow for a full, Q&A capable explanation of options at the time of being pulled over. If you’re at a loss, just plead Not Guilty and go to court.

The hologram will be projected from the officer’s palm into the passenger seat of your car.

If your car is full of people, you get arrested for some reason. (Embrace the slight chaos of our ordered future.)

BENEFITS

1) Streamlines the entire process. We cut out all these middle steps, everyone pays what they actually owe, and it goes fast.

2) No more deal-making. What I went through tells me the system wishes they could do away with that process, it seems a tremendous waste of time, and it lets people get away with things they legitimately did.

(I’m not advocating this for everything, just traffic tickets.)

3) Wider use of interactive holograms.

Is there a reason this wouldn’t work. I’m asking that in a genuine manner – I’m not a lawyer, so I’m sure there’s plenty I’m missing.