Towns make more than 50% of income thru speeding fines

[IAM]

Towns make more than 50% of income thru speeding fines. That seems excessive. I really don't like the speed traps like:
1- Speed limit changes obstructed by vegetation
2- Speed is 55 then drops to 25 as you are rounding a curve so you don't have time to slow down
3- signs that don't tell you the new speed limit but just say "End 45 mph speed limit"
4- towns target out of state drivers because even if innocent they are more likely to pay the fine than to have to come back and fight the ticket.

Below report first 23 seconds is just intro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI9cH7X202o

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/10/19/town-that-lived-off-speeding-tickets/


edit: I have not gotten a speeding or traffic ticket for over 25 years.

 

[BvBPL]

Yup. Watching those byroads running through little communities.

 

[Goodfella]

Thank you for posting an article this time.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That crazy RT engaged in whataboutism again?

Speed traps used to be far worse before the interstate system put an end to most of them. They were such a nuisance in Georgia that Lester Maddox decided to take the matter into his own hands to warn about the worst offenders, as he so frequently did:

It was one of the reasons why so many people relied on AAA to plot detailed routes to take. They tried to pick routes where there were no speed traps. But when they felt they couldn't help but use such a community, they designated the town in big red letters so that motorists would slow down.

Nowadays, the AAA occasionally puts up billboards at the outskirts of the worst ones:

 

[Agent327]

That must be some really small towns.

 

[Farm Boy]

Towns are what, ~2,000 - 9,999 residents before they are cities? Villages smaller than that? Decent sized highway running through a town, tickets running a couple hundred bucks, 10 tickets a day, ~2,500 bucks a day, somewhere between 750,000 and a million dollars a year? Yea, sounds about right for half the budget in villages and small towns. And that's in one that isn't really speed trapping very hard.

 

[Zelig]

Towns shouldn't be allowed to set speed limits on any roads.

Speed limits should be determined algorithmically on a national level by computers.

 

[Agent327]

Towns are what, ~2,000 - 9,999 residents before they are cities? Villages smaller than that? Decent sized highway running through a town, tickets running a couple hundred bucks, 10 tickets a day, ~2,500 bucks a day, somewhere between 750,000 and a million dollars a year?

I have not gotten a speeding or traffic ticket for over 25 years.

Or if you prefer:

Speed limits should be determined algorithmically on a national level by computers.

 

[Tahuti]

Speed limits should be determined algorithmically on a national level by computers.

We have got ourselves a turkey.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Towns are what, ~2,000 - 9,999 residents before they are cities? Villages smaller than that? Decent sized highway running through a town, tickets running a couple hundred bucks, 10 tickets a day, ~2,500 bucks a day, somewhere between 750,000 and a million dollars a year? Yea, sounds about right for half the budget in villages and small towns. And that's in one that isn't really speed trapping very hard.

Less than that. This town had a total budget of $270,000 .

Anyway, I'd have less problem with speeding tickets if we were honest about them, they're a tax, and if we were honest about that, more people would complain about them.

 

[Farm Boy]

You know, you could also look at it this way if you really want to. The people I know that don't speed and pay attention to traffic signs don't wind up with speeding tickets even if they drive through small towns. I'm hostile to calling them a tax. They're a fine. A fine people pay because they speed. Which leaves you with precious little room to complain. You can complain about the speed limit itself if you think it doesn't make sense. You can complain about corruption or illegal tickets if the enforcement or signage itself is flawed, and it sometimes is. But "OMG I got a ticket for speeding?!" When you were? Cry me a river.

 

[Phrossack]

Tickets and other fines tend to increase whenever towns are short on money. Yet another reason to avoid driving. But if you're in suburbia, you have to drive.

 

[Zelig]

You know, you could also look at it this way if you really want to. The people I know that don't speed and pay attention to traffic signs don't wind up with speeding tickets even if they drive through small towns. I'm hostile to calling them a tax. They're a fine. A fine people pay because they speed. Which leaves you with precious little room to complain. You can complain about the speed limit itself if you think it doesn't make sense. You can complain about corruption or illegal tickets if the enforcement or signage itself is flawed, and it sometimes is. But "OMG I got a ticket for speeding?!" When you were? Cry me a river.

Well, I don't get speeding tickets, but low speed limits bother me in two cases:

1. Not enough notice of the change in limit, so that I need to brake rather than just coasting to a lower speed.
2. Ineffective enforcement of speed limits so that driving at the limit puts me at greater risk to my safety due to the recklessness of others.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I don't get speeding tickets, but low speed limits bother me in two cases:

1. Not enough notice of the change in limit, so that I need to brake rather than just coasting to a lower speed.
2. Ineffective enforcement of speed limits so that driving at the limit puts me at greater risk to my safety due to the recklessness of others.

Low speed limits in small towns are fine. Particularly in ones that see intermittent traffic. There's kids in those places pretty frequently. If there's reason for the speed limit to be 20 mph or 10 mph or whatever, then put it at 20 or 10 mph.

1. If there's a problem with specific signage being inadequate, I'm likely to agree with you. Those are the sorts of things that make up the nitty gritty of the boring issues of local governance. People should try to make those things better by working within the system. It's maybe a bit annoying, but probably nowhere near tremendously difficult to put in public requests to pull speed limit signs up to keeping with state and national guidelines.
2. This sounds like an appeal for more everprescence of traffic policing. I can see the appeal, but past a certain point I'm not sure it's super efficient for the cost to slow the traffic down. What I will wholeheartedly agree with you on is that speed traps and unmarked traffic cops don't actually slow traffic down, which is what the goal should be. Marked, visible squad cars slow traffic down. Anytime a department actually purchases an unmarked squad they're doing so because they're anticipating putting somebody on revenue patrol rather than increasing the safety of its citizens. They should be treated with the appropriate level of scorn for that action.

 

[ParkCungHee]

2. This sounds like an appeal for more everprescence of traffic policing. I can see the appeal, but past a certain point I'm not sure it's super efficient for the cost to slow the traffic down. What I will wholeheartedly agree with you on is that speed traps and unmarked traffic cops don't actually slow traffic down, which is what the goal should be. Marked, visible squad cars slow traffic down. Anytime a department actually purchases an unmarked squad they're doing so because they're anticipating putting somebody on revenue patrol rather than increasing the safety of its citizens. They should be treated with the appropriate level of scorn for that action.

And that's why I think we're at the point where we have to treat it as a tax. If it's a fine, the cost efficiency shouldn't come into play. The purpose of a fine is to discourage people.

But as it's actually used and implemented, speeding tickets are a tax. The revenue produced by them never goes down, and no one talks about this as a failure of policy. Steps are continuously implemented with the focus of drawing in revenue rather then preventing the action (speed cameras are a huge portion of this too).

At this point, it's a tax. Or maybe more like a reverse lottery. If you drive, with a few outliers, you have about the same chance as everybody of getting a speeding ticket. And just about everybody seems to get them, because you can get them for human failure.

They're a tax that's popular because it's not called a tax, and everyone imagines they're not likely to pay it, only those other, bad drivers. Until their number comes up, but that's always the odd mistake.

And that's what gets me. It's not just a tax, it's a tax that if you actually proposed, would be immediately scorned. If I said, "Let's introduce a lottery, and anyone who's number comes in will have to put in a hundred dollars, regardless of their economic situation or need!" That would be regarded as cruel and economically senseless. But we set up the speed cameras and the speed traps and all the cars, and they spin around like a great big lottery machine, and suddenly the system is more fair.

It's great to talk about penalizing people who speed, but there's two facts that stand out:
1) The system is designed to collect penalties, not prevent people from breaking the limit.
2) You can't prevent people from breaking the limit, because human error causes speeding, and you can't ban human error.

I'm all for a system of preventing speeding. But that's not what this is, not anymore at the least.

 

[BvBPL]

But like death, you can't avoid taxes.

You can, however, avoid speeding tickets.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You can't, not really. Because plenty of people get speeding tickets on a count of human error. The more you drive, the more likely you are to speed, whether you like it or not.

 

[Zelig]

2. This sounds like an appeal for more everprescence of traffic policing. I can see the appeal, but past a certain point I'm not sure it's super efficient for the cost to slow the traffic down. What I will wholeheartedly agree with you on is that speed traps and unmarked traffic cops don't actually slow traffic down, which is what the goal should be. Marked, visible squad cars slow traffic down.

I don't particularly care about the level of policing, I care about the number of speeders.

If the flow of traffic is significantly above the speed limit I'm forced to choose between physical safety (driving with the flow of traffic) or safety of my wallet (driving at the speed limit).

Speed limits that are below the speed of traffic flow put every law-abiding driver at risk. Either the limit should be raised, or traffic flow should be slowed. (Probably via enforcement, since I general loathe traffic calming road features.)

And unmarked cars could easily enforce any speed limit with harsh enough penalties. (ie. Impound car of any speeder. My commute will be nice after half the city has their cars impounded.)

Anytime a department actually purchases an unmarked squad they're doing so because they're anticipating putting somebody on revenue patrol rather than increasing the safety of its citizens. They should be treated with the appropriate level of scorn for that action.

I've never understood this line of reasoning. If an officer is generating twice her salary in traffic tickets, then the department can put two officers in her place on safety patrol with that revenue.

If you drive, with a few outliers, you have about the same chance as everybody of getting a speeding ticket. And just about everybody seems to get them, because you can get them for human failure.

I don't think there's any evidence of either of these claims.

You can't, not really. Because plenty of people get speeding tickets on a count of human error. The more you drive, the more likely you are to speed, whether you like it or not.

If you're not a competent enough driver to avoid speeding you should probably invest in a device that warns you when you speed, it's cheaper than the cost of a single speeding ticket.

 

[BvBPL]

You can't, not really. Because plenty of people get speeding tickets on a count of human error. The more you drive, the more likely you are to speed, whether you like it or not.

Then the answer is to drive less or not at all.

Speeding tickets obviously are fines in that they are meant to discourage people. That's the reason why the state highway board puts up signs saying "work zone, speeding fines double." Those signs are obviously meant to discourage people from speeding where they may be roadwork and workers.

Even if I accept your theory that the tickets are not fines, costs associated with conducting permissive activities are generally not classified as taxes, but license fees, tariffs, and the like. No one forces another to go out and get permission from the state to drive a car, but those people that choose to do so become responsible for license fees. Paying to conduct a licensed activity isn't a tax.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Sure it is. Collecting an income as a member of a licensed profession is a licensed activity, and incurs a tax.