3 ms·

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

by 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.

by nox101 3y ago

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.