4 ms·

There are so, so many. Even traffic tickets are in this category. If we think it's a good idea to enforce speed laws, we should be willing to pay for that (the

There are so, so many. Even traffic tickets are in this category. If we think it's a good idea to enforce speed laws, we should be willing to pay for that (the officers) directly as part of the police budget paid exclusively from the gov't general budget. If a fine is a good enforcement mechanism, okay - but then just refund that directly to taxpayers. Or use a difference enforcement mechanism like holding the driver by the side of the road for an inconvenient period of time.

adolph 3y ago
My first guess is that the penalty box wouldn't pass constitutional muster but that it might be a nice method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_box
nox101 3y ago
traffic tickets must not be a revenue stream in California because they are not efforced. If they were a revenue stream, officers could hang out almost anywhere and catch violators at approximate no less than 1 per minute at nearly every intersection in the city midigated only by the time it takes to stop and register the ticket.
- m463 3y ago
  they are most certainly a revenue stream in California. However there is an interesting law in california... california vehicle code section 40801 No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code. That said, I remember a friend fought this once. A motorcycle officer gave him a ticket, and he investigated and found he had given hundreds of tickets from the same location. didn't help.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    ...and he investigated and found he had given hundreds of tickets from the same location. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but that does not constitute a speed trap. It very well could be that on that section of road there are just a lot of speeding drivers, and hence hundreds of tickets. One example of a speed trap is if the speed limit takes a sharp drop without warning. For example, rural road with a 60 mph limit, and it drops to 25 mph at the town limits with no "25 mph ahead" signs, and there sits a cop with a radar gun ten meters after the "25 mph" sign.
    - cptskippy 3y ago
      You just described every highway or interstate near a town in Georgia.
    - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
      That is the common definition of speed trap, but it's not the one referred to in the quoted law. The definition used there is limited to 2 things: 1) is a section of highway where cops monitor cars entering and exiting, then calculate an average speed to identify people who were driving over the speed limit. Basically, they need to demonstrate instantaneous speed, not average speed, to write a ticket. 2) is a highway segment that hasn't set its speed limit based on an engineering/traffic survey done in the last 5 years, 10 if nothing nearby has changed.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    Well the friend wasn't arrested, is a speeding ticket a "prosecution"?
- Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
  In California, money from traffic fines does not get paid back to law enforcement agencies. In fact, local city government has to pay for traffic enforcement, but gets no revenue from the fines because it all goes to the state.
- gosub100 3y ago
  catch violators != collect revenue
  - nox101 3y ago
    Sure so show me the math. What percentage of violators need to pay and what are the expensive of getting them to pay, etc. When is it a positive revenue stream. Also, what laws could be changed to make it so (assuming that's a good thing). Examples: The government takes it directly from your bank account like they do if you don't pay your taxes. Another would be to use a progressive fine system like I've heard they have in some countries so that rich people don't feel like they can just pay the fines and ignore the law.
    - gosub100 3y ago
      I'm sure they make money, but far less than 1-1 for each ticket written. I have the highly controversial opinion that they should use civil asset forfeiture for some traffic violations. If a speed cam catches a car going over 100mph, it's a public danger, regardless of who was operating it. Sue the car, and allow the owner to recover the proceeds from the driver in a separate civil action if they can prove that another person was driving it. Only exception would be if they reported it stolen. Eventually the fine would be paid or the vehicle would be impounded for lapsed registration/insurance.
mauvehaus 3y ago
I'll just leave this here: "The combination of traffic enforcement and Mayor's Court has provided 80% of Linndale's one million dollar annual budget, and underwritten its four full-time and ten part-time police officers.[14]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linndale,_Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linndale,_Ohio
causi 3y ago
Cities install speed camera before they install red light cameras. That should tell you all you need to know about their intended purpose.
m463 3y ago
> speed laws I think speed laws should be based on engineering/behavior as well. It's possible to artificially set speed limits too low and make normal people into fine-paying-department-funding criminals. There's something called "the 85th percentile" that engineers use to assess whether the speed limit set is too high or too low. (if the speed limit is too different than what normal people drive, the variance in speed will make the road more dangerous) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/85th_percentile_speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/85th_percentile_speed
- Auracle 3y ago
  I’ve heard it argued that speed limits as a whole could in fact increase fatalities. I believe it might be true in places with icy/snowy weather. Many people try to reach that magic number on the sign no matter what the conditions are. That means that people driving to the conditions are going far slower than the other people, and as you said - the difference isn’t a good thing, in addition the the fast people being a lot more likely to crash on their own.
  - hermitdev 3y ago
    I got my drivers license in the golden age of the mid-90s when the US nation-wide 55 MPH limit was repealed. Limits immediately reverted back to whatever the states had on the books. For Montana (where I lived at the time), there was no posted day time limit; night time it was 55 MPH. While no posted limit, the law stated something to the effect of "must drive reasonable and prudent for conditions". Conditions here is kind of vague, but is pretty all encompassing: road conditions, weather, traffic, your vehicle, your tires, etc. Bright, sunny, summer day in a Porsche with good tires? At 100MPH, you might have gotten pulled over, your tires checked, and then the officer would send you on your way. Blizzard conditions? Driving 45 might get you cited. And the citation had teeth: it was automatic reckless driving, something like a $500 fine and possibly a suspended/revoked license. Previously, the fines were a joke. Something like $5 for up to 20 MPH over the limit, could be paid in cash and didn't go on your record. Anyways, "reasonable and prudent" was eventually rule unconstitutional because we can't have nice things. So, out it went, and instead it was replaced with a 75 MPH daytime, 65 (I think? maybe it was 55 still) night time limit. It's now 85 day/65 night MPH as of last summer when I last drove through. But, the tl;dr is: when the posted limit was put in place, highway fatalities increased (quite dramatically from what I recall). No, I don't have any references to cite, it's just my recollection of events from nearly 30 years ago...

adolph 3y ago

My first guess is that the penalty box wouldn't pass constitutional muster but that it might be a nice method. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_box https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_box

nox101 3y ago

traffic tickets must not be a revenue stream in California because they are not efforced. If they were a revenue stream, officers could hang out almost anywhere and catch violators at approximate no less than 1 per minute at nearly every intersection in the city midigated only by the time it takes to stop and register the ticket.

m463 3y ago
they are most certainly a revenue stream in California. However there is an interesting law in california... california vehicle code section 40801 No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code. That said, I remember a friend fought this once. A motorcycle officer gave him a ticket, and he investigated and found he had given hundreds of tickets from the same location. didn't help.
- mikestew 3y ago
  ...and he investigated and found he had given hundreds of tickets from the same location. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but that does not constitute a speed trap. It very well could be that on that section of road there are just a lot of speeding drivers, and hence hundreds of tickets. One example of a speed trap is if the speed limit takes a sharp drop without warning. For example, rural road with a 60 mph limit, and it drops to 25 mph at the town limits with no "25 mph ahead" signs, and there sits a cop with a radar gun ten meters after the "25 mph" sign.
  - cptskippy 3y ago
    You just described every highway or interstate near a town in Georgia.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    That is the common definition of speed trap, but it's not the one referred to in the quoted law. The definition used there is limited to 2 things: 1) is a section of highway where cops monitor cars entering and exiting, then calculate an average speed to identify people who were driving over the speed limit. Basically, they need to demonstrate instantaneous speed, not average speed, to write a ticket. 2) is a highway segment that hasn't set its speed limit based on an engineering/traffic survey done in the last 5 years, 10 if nothing nearby has changed.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Well the friend wasn't arrested, is a speeding ticket a "prosecution"?
Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
In California, money from traffic fines does not get paid back to law enforcement agencies. In fact, local city government has to pay for traffic enforcement, but gets no revenue from the fines because it all goes to the state.
gosub100 3y ago
catch violators != collect revenue
- nox101 3y ago
  Sure so show me the math. What percentage of violators need to pay and what are the expensive of getting them to pay, etc. When is it a positive revenue stream. Also, what laws could be changed to make it so (assuming that's a good thing). Examples: The government takes it directly from your bank account like they do if you don't pay your taxes. Another would be to use a progressive fine system like I've heard they have in some countries so that rich people don't feel like they can just pay the fines and ignore the law.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    I'm sure they make money, but far less than 1-1 for each ticket written. I have the highly controversial opinion that they should use civil asset forfeiture for some traffic violations. If a speed cam catches a car going over 100mph, it's a public danger, regardless of who was operating it. Sue the car, and allow the owner to recover the proceeds from the driver in a separate civil action if they can prove that another person was driving it. Only exception would be if they reported it stolen. Eventually the fine would be paid or the vehicle would be impounded for lapsed registration/insurance.

mauvehaus 3y ago

I'll just leave this here: "The combination of traffic enforcement and Mayor's Court has provided 80% of Linndale's one million dollar annual budget, and underwritten its four full-time and ten part-time police officers.[14]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linndale,_Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linndale,_Ohio

causi 3y ago

Cities install speed camera before they install red light cameras. That should tell you all you need to know about their intended purpose.

m463 3y ago

> speed laws I think speed laws should be based on engineering/behavior as well. It's possible to artificially set speed limits too low and make normal people into fine-paying-department-funding criminals. There's something called "the 85th percentile" that engineers use to assess whether the speed limit set is too high or too low. (if the speed limit is too different than what normal people drive, the variance in speed will make the road more dangerous) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentile#Applications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/85th_percentile_speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/85th_percentile_speed

Auracle 3y ago
I’ve heard it argued that speed limits as a whole could in fact increase fatalities. I believe it might be true in places with icy/snowy weather. Many people try to reach that magic number on the sign no matter what the conditions are. That means that people driving to the conditions are going far slower than the other people, and as you said - the difference isn’t a good thing, in addition the the fast people being a lot more likely to crash on their own.
- hermitdev 3y ago
  I got my drivers license in the golden age of the mid-90s when the US nation-wide 55 MPH limit was repealed. Limits immediately reverted back to whatever the states had on the books. For Montana (where I lived at the time), there was no posted day time limit; night time it was 55 MPH. While no posted limit, the law stated something to the effect of "must drive reasonable and prudent for conditions". Conditions here is kind of vague, but is pretty all encompassing: road conditions, weather, traffic, your vehicle, your tires, etc. Bright, sunny, summer day in a Porsche with good tires? At 100MPH, you might have gotten pulled over, your tires checked, and then the officer would send you on your way. Blizzard conditions? Driving 45 might get you cited. And the citation had teeth: it was automatic reckless driving, something like a $500 fine and possibly a suspended/revoked license. Previously, the fines were a joke. Something like $5 for up to 20 MPH over the limit, could be paid in cash and didn't go on your record. Anyways, "reasonable and prudent" was eventually rule unconstitutional because we can't have nice things. So, out it went, and instead it was replaced with a 75 MPH daytime, 65 (I think? maybe it was 55 still) night time limit. It's now 85 day/65 night MPH as of last summer when I last drove through. But, the tl;dr is: when the posted limit was put in place, highway fatalities increased (quite dramatically from what I recall). No, I don't have any references to cite, it's just my recollection of events from nearly 30 years ago...