A Weak Economy Means More Traffic Tickets... Duh!!!

[I_Got_Banned]

What makes speeding on a rural road $200 worse than speeding on the interstate, or in a densely-populated urban neighborhood?

Because on a rural road, and if you were to get into a car accident, it would be more difficult to get emergency services over to you, and hence the extra $200 charge!

States like Massachusetts - which apparently started a program that rewards troopers for giving tickets vs. warnings - should be sued. If that's not a kickback, I don't know what is. If it really is just about safety, then there should be no incentive to cite vs. warn, and there should be no "expected minimum performance" based on number of citations written.

You know, even in states where such practices are illegal (California for example) the number of citation an officer writes during a shift has got to be an integral part of the officer's rating review. I mean if an officer is assigned to traffic duty and day after day he's come back with a citation book that remained untouched, the question of "what are you doing out there all day long?" might come up!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

"Self-serving", my foot!

Do you disagree that the practice of an insurance company purchasing Radar equipment for a police department is "self serving"?

 

[Zigner]

Do you disagree that the practice of an insurance company purchasing Radar equipment for a police department is "self serving"?

Of course it's self-serving...but not for the reason you imply

The thought behind the purchase of radar equipment is that if people slow down, there will be fewer accidents, and thus less that has to be paid out in claims...improving the bottom line!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Of course it's self-serving...but not for the reason you imply

The thought behind the purchase of radar equipment is that if people slow down, there will be fewer accidents, and thus less that has to be paid out in claims...improving the bottom line!

OK, now do you wanna tell me what I was implying?

If you truly beleive that ANY insurance company is more concerned about safety and fewer accidents than they are about "profits" (not bottom line) then you are much more gullible than what your posts may suggest!

I'd be more apt to buy your theory had you added in "higher premiums" somewhere between the words "accidents" and "claims"...

 

[Jim_bo]

How many times have we seen a ticket that has a "fine" of $35 end up costing $175?? A reasonable person CANNOT argue that is not based on revenue vice safety (although Zigner probably will try!)

In my home town, there is a law still on the books that says a person cannot drive down mainstreet in an automobile unless someone walks 20 ft in front of them waving a red flag. So... if the cops started writing tickets for that and fining people, would you not say that was purely about revenue??? How would that be different than the arbitrary enforcement of other traffic laws that has no regard for improving safety?

Also, one only needs to attend traffic court one time to see that that the State cares very little about justice and more about revenue. In CA the law requires the prosecution to prove that a speed trap did NOT exist... whether the defendant raises the issue or not!! So, how many people have been illegally convicted of speeding where the prosecution did NOT meet its burden of proof? THOUSANDS!!! The State merely relies on the public's ignorance of the law. I believe that is the definition of the word "SCAM".

 

[AHA]

Do you disagree that the practice of an insurance company purchasing Radar equipment for a police department is "self serving"?

Who cares about who paid for the equipment that caught you breaking the law? Don't break the law, and you'll never see even a hint of that equipment.

 

[Zigner]

OK, now do you wanna tell me what I was implying?

If you truly beleive that ANY insurance company is more concerned about safety and fewer accidents than they are about "profits" (not bottom line) then you are much more gullible than what your posts may suggest!

I'd be more apt to buy your theory had you added in "higher premiums" somewhere between the words "accidents" and "claims"...

Bottom line IS profits
Of course they care. Fewer accidents: Higher profit (ie: better bottom line)

 

[racer72]

We're still on the first page of this thread and you only had one post prior to this one. Is it really that hard to miss?

Please refer back to the post you referenced and you will find your quote (in the dark gray shaded text box) beneath the remark I made.


Right, you never stated that but you implied it when you stated "People that speed also get in more auto accidents" and you left out the more than what part. But now you're gonna try and dance your way around it.



And where do speeders fit in according to the sources you quoted there?
Also, does that mean that you're retracting your earlier statement that

"people that speed also get in more auto accidents"?

Your problem is you keep reading stuff into my posts I never stated.

My post:

People that speed also get in more auto accidents

Then you state quoting the above:

Not according to NHTSA statistics... Speed is not the #1 contributor to accidents...

Zigner then asked:

Who said it was?

Your response:

racer72 did. In a post that you agreed with and complimented!

I then posted:

Please quote the part that I stated speeding is the number 1 cause of accidents.

You never answered my question. You plainly make a statement that I stated speeding is the number 1 cause of auto accident. I made no such claim, I never implied any such thing. What I stated is fact, those that speed get into more accidents than those that don't, that is a proven fact. If I intended to state, which I didn't, that speeding is the number 1 cause of auto accidents I would have said such in my post.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

How many times have we seen a ticket that has a "fine" of $35 end up costing $175?? A reasonable person CANNOT argue that is not based on revenue vice safety (although Zigner probably will try!)

In my home town, there is a law still on the books that says a person cannot drive down mainstreet in an automobile unless someone walks 20 ft in front of them waving a red flag. So... if the cops started writing tickets for that and fining people, would you not say that was purely about revenue??? How would that be different than the arbitrary enforcement of other traffic laws that has no regard for improving safety?

Also, one only needs to attend traffic court one time to see that that the State cares very little about justice and more about revenue. In CA the law requires the prosecution to prove that a speed trap did NOT exist... whether the defendant raises the issue or not!! So, how many people have been illegally convicted of speeding where the prosecution did NOT meet its burden of proof? THOUSANDS!!! The State merely relies on the public's ignorance of the law. I believe that is the definition of the word "SCAM".

Right back at you Jim_bo with the "I don't usually agree..." but what you stated here is the -read between the lines- message in the article.

The way I see it from law enforcement's point of view is this:

>> Law enfrocement strictly issues the citation. That is their job, that is what they do. They dont set the fine amounts.

The Courts adjudicate those citations and issue orders to pay the "BASE FINE" amounts specified in the bail schedule which is typically issued by the Judicial council. (Although in most cases the courts are given some leeway as to the amoount of fine that is imposed).

Then the legistlature steps in and says here a few extra Penal Code and Government Code sections with which you can take that "Base Fine" amount and magically turn into multiples of the original "Base Fine". (In California they are PC 1464 and 1465.7 as well as GC 70372, 70375, 76000, 76000.5, 76104.6, and 76104.7).

All three entities actually contribute the own integral share of generating that revenue for the state. However, you go through the entire process (getting cited, going through court and paying the fine) without any contact or communication with the entity (the legislature) that is most responsible for fines being so costly...

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Who cares about who paid for the equipment that caught you breaking the law? Don't break the law, and you'll never see even a hint of that equipment.

See! now you're suggesting that every time I get pulled over and cited, the presumption of guilt supercedes that of my being innocent. But that's a different topic for a different thread that I am sure, you and Zigner will be quite active in and will shine throughout it gloriously.

Why would you avoid answering the question though. It is a legitimate question! So here it is again:

Do you disagree that the practice of an insurance company purchasing Radar equipment for a police department is "self serving"?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Your problem is you keep reading stuff into my posts I never stated.

Actually racer, I don't have a problem. You made a statement that suggested, as any reasonable person might conclude, that "People that speed also get in more auto accidents".

Now, that is either an incomplete sentence - (more accidents than who?) - and here is your chance to complete it... OR...
You are leaving it up to the person reading your post to come to their own conclusion. Considering the fact that at the time I read your statement, you had not completed it, I opted to come to my own conclusion that you are suggesting that "people that speed get into more accidents than all other people" which might also suggest that "speeding is the number one contributing factor to accidents".

I'll be more than happy to retract both of those conclusions if you will take the time to complete your sentence

BUT WAIT... Don't jump all over that yet...

So, I, NOT to challenge you, prove you wrong, or in any way discredit you or the amount of knowledge and expertise that you demonstrate on here day after day, replied with information that I found on the NHTSA web site. Again, this was only done in an effort to keep information that is posted, (regardless by whom) as accurate as it can be...

You never answered my question.

Yes I did! In fact, i did so twice. Once indirectly as I replied to Zigner, and another directly in response to your post. here it is a third time (I am referring to the part that is underlined:

People that speed also get in more auto accidents and are killed in these accident more often.

Now compare that to what you stated down here: (specifically the underlined part)

What I stated is fact, those that speed get into more accidents than those that don't, that is a proven fact.

I am sure you will agree that in your first post, you left out the bolded part that you included in your last post.

Now, if you can't see where and how you changed the entire meaning of you statement by adding the 4 words that I bolded above, then that is STILL not my problem.

Lastly, you know and I know that it should not have taken this detailed of an explanation to clarify it. You know and I know that you are much smarter than to claim you did not know the difference between what you said first and how you added to it in your last post.

Once you get sucked into the vortex of peer pressure (and its clear who I'm talking about), its hard to get out...

 

[CdwJava]

You know, even in states where such practices are illegal (California for example) the number of citation an officer writes during a shift has got to be an integral part of the officer's rating review. I mean if an officer is assigned to traffic duty and day after day he's come back with a citation book that remained untouched, the question of "what are you doing out there all day long?" might come up!

It's a little more complex than that. Granted, an officer assigned to a traffic detail will be expected to stop vehicle and at least run the driver. An officer that is not making stops could be in trouble ... dinging him for not writing citations on those stops can cause legal and civil problems for the agency. Does it happen? Sure. Sometimes the labor unions get involved, and sometimes the defense bar brings it up and describes it as a "quota".

A more appropriate measure is to balance out activity with that of peers working the same beat assignments and shifts. You also have to run a review of contacts made - stops, radio traffic, calls, etc.

For instance, when I was a road dog, I may not have gotten a lot of citations, but I had more reports and more misdemeanor arrests than the majority of my peers. I had one supervisor that dinged me for having fewer cites than my peers, but that was overturned upon further review as the Lt. pointed out all my arrests and how THAT was taking up my already limited discretionary time.

One issue that drove up the amount of citations several years back was the issue of "racial, profiling". Many agencies made it far more complicated (read: More Paperwork) to issue a warning than to iussue a citation. ergo, cites in San Diego and San Jose both went up a great deal ... it was less paperwork to issue a citation that to "warn" the driver and then fill out the two to three page warning form which might require an even longer detention of the driver.

My agency doesn't evaluate based on stats, and neither do many others. It's a constant see-saw battle, and agencies play a balancing act with it. It's sort of like evaluating a teacher's performance - how do you do it without encouraging them to "cheat"?

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Well Carl, your example of making it more burdensome for the cop to write a warning rather than writing a ticket may not be a quota... but it has the same effect.

Furthermore, you are only seeing the issue from a cop's point of view. Traffic courts are rarely empty. Plenty of enthusiastic cops around to write tickets. But then there is the issue of all the illegal convictions... the example of the State simply taking advantage of the ignorance of the defendants... the $185 check to pay for a $35 fine... etc. It is all quite a racket that brings in BILLIONS of dollars for the State. California has even gone to the extent of not sending Prosecuting Attorneys to traffic court for the sole reason of.... THEY COST TOO MUCH!!! We can't have them cutting into profits!!! Anyone that says that the State honestly treats traffic tickets as a virtuous attempt to improve highway safety with no financial motive is either a fool or a liar.

 

[CdwJava]

Well Carl, your example of making it more burdensome for the cop to write a warning rather than writing a ticket may not be a quota... but it has the same effect.

One being lawful, the other not. And none of it being about money.

Furthermore, you are only seeing the issue from a cop's point of view. Traffic courts are rarely empty. Plenty of enthusiastic cops around to write tickets.

Of course. There are also plenty of cops arresting DV suspects, shoplifters, etc. It's part of the job.

But then there is the issue of all the illegal convictions... the example of the State simply taking advantage of the ignorance of the defendants... the $185 check to pay for a $35 fine... etc.

How is a guilty plea an "illegal conviction"? People plead no contest to all manner of criminal accusations - traffic and otherwise. If there was an "illegal conviction", I would hope that the conviction was appealed and handled.

It is all quite a racket that brings in BILLIONS of dollars for the State.

To which state??? And, are we talking NET or GROSS? Those are vastly different numbers.

California has even gone to the extent of not sending Prosecuting Attorneys to traffic court for the sole reason of.... THEY COST TOO MUCH!!!

That, and they are not required to do so.

We can't have them cutting into profits!!!

Correction: The fines and assessments don't recover the COST.

Anyone that says that the State honestly treats traffic tickets as a virtuous attempt to improve highway safety with no financial motive is either a fool or a liar.

The fines were originally designed to be punitive, the fees and assessments were designed to compensate the court and the various justice system components for their expenditures. I suppose the state legislature decided that the offenders should be responsible to partially compensate the state for its enforcement and court expenditures to pursue them. Seems reasonable to me. And the officers that issue the citations, well, they don't get a bonus and the department does not get anywhere close to compensated for time and expense, so the enforcement end of it would seem to be for some other purpose ... maybe for stats, maybe because it is part of the job description, and maybe because it is part of a comprehensive traffic safety program.

If you would prefer the state eat the cost, tax everyone to pay for the system, and not punish traffic offenders at all, contact your state legislators.

- Carl

 

[Antigone*]

I am going to put my two cents in (clink clink).

Traffic tickets are like NSF fees. They are completely avoidable.