5 ms·

We should put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy for those hurt by the offense. We should set ticket prices based on the needed

by Cerium 10y ago

We should put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy for those hurt by the offense. We should set ticket prices based on the needed premium to insure the victims. That would remove the incentive to increase tickets, while preserving the purpose! For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets.

bmelton 10y ago
> For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets. This is referenced in the article, but if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. The idea that you can make a facial wrong into something just by putting the ill-gotten gains to better use than they currently are is undoubtedly somewhat more noble an act than what is currently done, but still ignoble as it is predicated on ignobility. Past that, your idea has pragmatic challenges. If the funds are placed into a trust or insurance policy, then they are not being used to fund the police and court systems that generate those funds, so the system cannot perpetuate itself without significantly raising the cost of the tickets to cover both the insurance policy funds and the regular maintenance fees, which makes a ticket expensive enough to be worth hiring an attorney to fight, meaning fewer fees collected, meaning fees would need be raised again to cover the cost of avoidance.
- JoBrad 10y ago
  > if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.
  - bmelton 10y ago
    No, injuries do not have to occur for you to get a ticket. Injuries do have to occur for one to have standing in a civil suit. If it is a criminal act, then you have the right to presumption of innocence, to confront your accusers, and the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was indeed you who was driving at the time. As the article details, that is NOT how red light camera "crimes" are treated. To be fair, they aren't treated like civil violations either, which is the crux of the complaint. As citizens, we are supposed to have protections against a state who engages in such a fashion, but my point (perhaps poorly made before) is that in order to extend such protections to the citizenry for laws like this, the cost of the crime must go up substantially, as it is only by the current practice that these punishments can be so inexpensive to get away with. Someone upstream (I couldn't find it skimming) makes the point that it is only because these claims are so small that their punishments are tenable by the population, and I broadly agree with that. If a red light ticket were thousands of dollars, they'd be fought vigorously by everyone who got such a ticket, and it's quite likely that they'd be treated more like real cases than de rigueur as they are. If they were fought so vigorously, they might fall on claims of constitutionality, so it is imperative that the fines be kept low enough that nobody would engage with the massive undertaking of fighting them to a high enough level that matters.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      I do not think cerium's suggestion requires that the beneficiaries need be regarded as plaintiffs in a civil suit, it merely suggests limits on the flow of funds. Other than that detail, I think you make some very valid points.
      - bmelton 10y ago
        I wasn't suggesting that the beneficiaries would be named plaintiffs, but that in order for the state to sue a red-light runner for running a red light, the state has to be a plaintiff, and if they cannot prove any injury from someone running a red light, then they have no standing to sue. Apologies if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.
OliverJones 10y ago
> put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy That's a great idea. But that means taking that revenue from fines out of the government's general fund. Or it means engaging in a shadow-booking shell game where the fine revenue goes both to (a) showing the government's general fund books are balanced and (b) is somehow earmarked for making restitution to victims. Your suggestion requires long-term honest bookkeeping from a government. I believe that makes it infeasible, sorry to say.
- koenigdavidmj 10y ago
  The fact that the government no longer has that money in the general fund is exactly the point. Otherwise, one of the greatest acts of civil disobedience is to advocate perfect compliance with the law.
u801e 10y ago
It would be better to get rid of the revenue aspect entirely. Instead of assessing a fine (plus court costs), just assess demerit points on the license of the diver who is guilty of the traffic offense. With enough offenses, the person's license can be suspended or revoked.
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  That already happens here in California. Three(?) strikes in a two year period and your license is suspended. At the same time, you still have to pay for the ticket.
  - u801e 10y ago
    The point I was trying to make was to eliminate fines and court costs as a form of punishment for traffic offenses. The only penalty would be demerit points on one's drivers license. That removes the revenue aspect from traffic enforcement, but still will lead to eventual license suspensions for repeat offenders.
- Cerium 10y ago
  This has been successfully implemented in China. If you exceed the limit you have to watch am educational video and do some public service. Very good detriment to rich people speeding.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  Yes--this would be the best, but it's always been about Revenue Collection since I got my provisional licence at 15 1/2. Personally, I would like to see fines tied to Income. In my county, of Marin, the wealthy drive like they don't have a care in the world. They don't care if they get a ticket. It's just a part of driving? "Oh well?" The help--they know a $500 ticket might ruin their year, or put a dent in next months rent? It's not fair. Plus--towns, counties realized 25 years ago that fees, and fines on all levels are a legal way to tax. I'll spill the beans on Marin County. Just don't drive through it on a Friday, or Saturday night, after 10:30 p.m. Cops assume everyone drinks like they do on their days off, or at parties. San Anselmo is basically a speed trap. If you aren't white and look wealthy, be prepared for a pull over for no reason, or a really debatable ticket. San Rafael is o.k.; they have real crime to attend to. Ross, Greenbrae, Kentfield, Corte Madera, Novato, and Sausalito are just Revenue Collection Squads. (Your tech wealthy bosses usually end up living here, if they make it big, and you might be invited to a hootenanny?)
YokoZar 10y ago
You can get most of the way there by just mandating the fines go to a different layer of government. If it's cities deciding fine levels and enforcing them with city police, but revenues go to the state, then there is not nearly as much incentive to over-enforce.
steamer25 10y ago
+1 for ear-marking I'd also allow projects that remediate the offense. E.g., for red light violations, I'd allow red light fine monies to fund studies of various intersections to see if e.g., the yellow light duration needs to be made longer, etc. Or e.g., fines from moving violations in general could go towards improving transportation so that people can safely move about in a hurry.

by Cerium 10y ago

bmelton 10y ago

> For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets. This is referenced in the article, but if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. The idea that you can make a facial wrong into something just by putting the ill-gotten gains to better use than they currently are is undoubtedly somewhat more noble an act than what is currently done, but still ignoble as it is predicated on ignobility. Past that, your idea has pragmatic challenges. If the funds are placed into a trust or insurance policy, then they are not being used to fund the police and court systems that generate those funds, so the system cannot perpetuate itself without significantly raising the cost of the tickets to cover both the insurance policy funds and the regular maintenance fees, which makes a ticket expensive enough to be worth hiring an attorney to fight, meaning fewer fees collected, meaning fees would need be raised again to cover the cost of avoidance.

JoBrad 10y ago
> if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.
- bmelton 10y ago
  No, injuries do not have to occur for you to get a ticket. Injuries do have to occur for one to have standing in a civil suit. If it is a criminal act, then you have the right to presumption of innocence, to confront your accusers, and the burden of proof is on the state to prove that it was indeed you who was driving at the time. As the article details, that is NOT how red light camera "crimes" are treated. To be fair, they aren't treated like civil violations either, which is the crux of the complaint. As citizens, we are supposed to have protections against a state who engages in such a fashion, but my point (perhaps poorly made before) is that in order to extend such protections to the citizenry for laws like this, the cost of the crime must go up substantially, as it is only by the current practice that these punishments can be so inexpensive to get away with. Someone upstream (I couldn't find it skimming) makes the point that it is only because these claims are so small that their punishments are tenable by the population, and I broadly agree with that. If a red light ticket were thousands of dollars, they'd be fought vigorously by everyone who got such a ticket, and it's quite likely that they'd be treated more like real cases than de rigueur as they are. If they were fought so vigorously, they might fall on claims of constitutionality, so it is imperative that the fines be kept low enough that nobody would engage with the massive undertaking of fighting them to a high enough level that matters.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    I do not think cerium's suggestion requires that the beneficiaries need be regarded as plaintiffs in a civil suit, it merely suggests limits on the flow of funds. Other than that detail, I think you make some very valid points.
    - bmelton 10y ago
      I wasn't suggesting that the beneficiaries would be named plaintiffs, but that in order for the state to sue a red-light runner for running a red light, the state has to be a plaintiff, and if they cannot prove any injury from someone running a red light, then they have no standing to sue. Apologies if I didn't make that clear in my earlier posts.

OliverJones 10y ago

> put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy That's a great idea. But that means taking that revenue from fines out of the government's general fund. Or it means engaging in a shadow-booking shell game where the fine revenue goes both to (a) showing the government's general fund books are balanced and (b) is somehow earmarked for making restitution to victims. Your suggestion requires long-term honest bookkeeping from a government. I believe that makes it infeasible, sorry to say.

koenigdavidmj 10y ago
The fact that the government no longer has that money in the general fund is exactly the point. Otherwise, one of the greatest acts of civil disobedience is to advocate perfect compliance with the law.

u801e 10y ago

It would be better to get rid of the revenue aspect entirely. Instead of assessing a fine (plus court costs), just assess demerit points on the license of the diver who is guilty of the traffic offense. With enough offenses, the person's license can be suspended or revoked.

colejohnson66 10y ago
That already happens here in California. Three(?) strikes in a two year period and your license is suspended. At the same time, you still have to pay for the ticket.
- u801e 10y ago
  The point I was trying to make was to eliminate fines and court costs as a form of punishment for traffic offenses. The only penalty would be demerit points on one's drivers license. That removes the revenue aspect from traffic enforcement, but still will lead to eventual license suspensions for repeat offenders.
Cerium 10y ago
This has been successfully implemented in China. If you exceed the limit you have to watch am educational video and do some public service. Very good detriment to rich people speeding.
icantdrive55 10y ago
Yes--this would be the best, but it's always been about Revenue Collection since I got my provisional licence at 15 1/2. Personally, I would like to see fines tied to Income. In my county, of Marin, the wealthy drive like they don't have a care in the world. They don't care if they get a ticket. It's just a part of driving? "Oh well?" The help--they know a $500 ticket might ruin their year, or put a dent in next months rent? It's not fair. Plus--towns, counties realized 25 years ago that fees, and fines on all levels are a legal way to tax. I'll spill the beans on Marin County. Just don't drive through it on a Friday, or Saturday night, after 10:30 p.m. Cops assume everyone drinks like they do on their days off, or at parties. San Anselmo is basically a speed trap. If you aren't white and look wealthy, be prepared for a pull over for no reason, or a really debatable ticket. San Rafael is o.k.; they have real crime to attend to. Ross, Greenbrae, Kentfield, Corte Madera, Novato, and Sausalito are just Revenue Collection Squads. (Your tech wealthy bosses usually end up living here, if they make it big, and you might be invited to a hootenanny?)

YokoZar 10y ago

You can get most of the way there by just mandating the fines go to a different layer of government. If it's cities deciding fine levels and enforcing them with city police, but revenues go to the state, then there is not nearly as much incentive to over-enforce.

steamer25 10y ago

+1 for ear-marking I'd also allow projects that remediate the offense. E.g., for red light violations, I'd allow red light fine monies to fund studies of various intersections to see if e.g., the yellow light duration needs to be made longer, etc. Or e.g., fines from moving violations in general could go towards improving transportation so that people can safely move about in a hurry.