Speed Limits exist only for municipal revenue

[jlee]

Yes. Are you saying they should?

Because the government is more important than reality?

So speed limits shouldn't apply when it's dark, because obviously your vision is greatly improved?

You're outdriving your headlights before you think you are.

Yeah, they were saying on the radio here the other day that the latest effort by the city cops here to "enforce traffic safety" had pretty much resulted in over 1100 speeding tickets in less than 2 months, in a city of just over 100,000 people.

I do have to say that the city cops here aren't too bad, though. They tend to enforce the limit on the central freeway running through town (60mph), and in school zones during times when the kids are going to/from school (definitely a good time to enforce the limit).

The population of the city is irrelevant. How many people travel through the city? That's what matters.

 

[zerocool84]

I've gotten a ticket for going 80 in a 65 and I understand that. The ticket I got that really pissed me off was going 31 in a 25. I will never forget that and it still pisses me off to this day.

 

[Bignate603]

Yes. Are you saying they should?

Because the government is more important than reality?

Yes, I think the ticket was completely called for.

 

[Jumpem]

I've gotten a ticket for going 80 in a 65 and I understand that. The ticket I got that really pissed me off was going 31 in a 25. I will never forget that and it still pisses me off to this day.

Six over. I wouldn't be surprised getting a ticket.

 

[jlee]

Six over. I wouldn't be surprised getting a ticket.

If it wasn't a school zone, I'm surprised that he was stopped, let alone ticketed.

But that's me..

 

[zerocool84]

If it wasn't a school zone, I'm surprised that he was stopped, let alone ticketed.

But that's me..

It was a school zone on a weekend.

 

[RockinZ28]

Well the basic speed law here states No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

All public streets must be documented as to why the limit is less than 65mph.

Hence you can get a speeding ticket going under the speed limit in bad conditions like rain, and I've read of people getting their 10-15mph over the limit tickets dismissed based on it being safe to do so given the road conditions or surveys being outdated. Above 10-15 over you're basically SOL as no judge is going to decide that is reasonable.

That doesn't apply to freeways because they are posted as "maximum" speed limit. Though you will rarely if ever get pulled over going 10-15 over on the freeway if it is with the flow of traffic unless the cops are specifically out to get speeders.

If a law is a law, you'd be perfectly fine with paying a $390 ticket + fees if you were pulled over going 66mph and issued an "exceeding 65mph" citation? Theoretically that's how it should work, where does the unwritten law of exceeding the maximum speed start and end? 1-9mph over? Why?

Going 65mph in rush hour traffic when you have cars on all four sides of you within 4-10ft is WAY more dangerous than doing 75-80 on an empty freeway.

How many accidents do I see a day going to and from work in rush hour? At least 3-4.
How many do I see when I have to go to work between like 11pm and 5am? Usually 0.

 

[jlee]

What state is that? Sounds very similar to NH.

 

[Pulsar]

If a law is a law, you'd be perfectly fine with paying a $390 ticket + fees if you were pulled over going 66mph and issued an "exceeding 65mph" citation? Theoretically that's how it should work, where does the unwritten law of exceeding the maximum speed start and end? 1-9mph over? Why?

No. I would fight it, and I would win. There is a reason they don't pull people over for that small a overage: the police have a limit (usually +5 mph) that they don't even consider speeding because of all the things that can go on - slightly different tire sizes leading a slightly inaccurate speedometer on your car, the difficulty of proving accuracy to +/- 1 mpg considering all other factors, etc.

I have only once experienced a cop that was an ass, and he may have well had a right to be: going 37 in a 25 because I was trying to explain the overdrive gear to my girlfriend.... (oops). But I suppose cop conduct is a different post altogether.

Either way, the law IS the law. Arguing that you should not get a ticket when speeding is the same as saying you shouldn't have any personal responsibility. Your reponsibility is to follow the law. If you don't there are consequences.

To return to the original post's topic line: the suggestion that speed limits are there for revenue only is idiotic. They are there primarily for safety - on the freeway, in school zones, in residential areas, etc.

 

[c3p0]

There have been several stories about this. How old are you? You seem a bit naive.

Probably old enough to be your father. I've been driving for over 4 decades and in several countries. The part that I am questioning is this:

Heck, sometimes it is in their service agreement with companies that deploy these cameras - which BTW these companies get a cut of the revenues.

That I find a little difficult to believe.

c3p0

 

[MJinZ]

No. I would fight it, and I would win. There is a reason they don't pull people over for that small a overage: the police have a limit (usually +5 mph) that they don't even consider speeding because of all the things that can go on - slightly different tire sizes leading a slightly inaccurate speedometer on your car, the difficulty of proving accuracy to +/- 1 mpg considering all other factors, etc.

I have only once experienced a cop that was an ass, and he may have well had a right to be: going 37 in a 25 because I was trying to explain the overdrive gear to my girlfriend.... (oops). But I suppose cop conduct is a different post altogether.

Either way, the law IS the law. Arguing that you should not get a ticket when speeding is the same as saying you shouldn't have any personal responsibility. Your reponsibility is to follow the law. If you don't there are consequences.

Your responsibility is to accept the consequences of being caught breaching said laws. Some laws are meaningless though. Any law that seeks to fine someone is basically a meaningless law. It says that the law is unimportant enough to impede upon civil liberties (IE: jail time or public service). The most serious laws are those that carry the penalty of death.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

So speed limits shouldn't apply when it's dark, because obviously your vision is greatly improved?

You're outdriving your headlights before you think you are.

If I'm driving and a child walks into the street and I hit him without speeding, the government will try to put me in jail for it, but eventually they'll fail to keep me there at great financial ruin to myself.

But if I'm speeding, I lose. Because... semantics.

And me going 66 is illegal and a tractor trailer going 65 is legal because... _____.

 

[Jumpem]

Probably old enough to be your father. I've been driving for over 4 decades and in several countries. The part that I am questioning is this:



That I find a little difficult to believe.

c3p0

The companies do get part of the ticket revenue. Around here a company wants to pay to put red light cameras up in order to get a portion of the fines.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/dont_blow_that_red_light_syracuse_intersections.html

 

[RockinZ28]

The companies do get part of the ticket revenue. Around here a company wants to pay to put red light cameras up in order to get a portion of the fines.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/dont_blow_that_red_light_syracuse_intersections.html

Yup they most certainly do get money for it. And wtf? $50 fine in Syracuse? Mine was $387, on a right turn no less. Yea they aren't in it for the money.... seems strange that 10 years ago when I got my license, I got a couple speeding tickets within two years for 15 and 20mph over. Both were less than $100.

The last 3 tickets I've had since 2008 were-
Red light camera: $387
Exceeding 65mph: $390
25mph over basic speed law violation: ~$400

Plus they charge you an extra $30+ to "process" your traffic school request. They have also added a "convenience" fee of $10 to pay your ticket online.

 

[alphatarget1]

Not to turn this into a P&N thread but this is why people don't trust the government.

If you want revenue, increase the tax rate (maybe sales tax) and try to justify it with the citizens to prove that it's necessary, not to use traffic laws to increase revenue. Traffic laws should exist solely for safety reasons, PERIOD. Most people would bark at tax increases to keep hiring a few lazy city/county/state employees who don't do sh!t. They should get laid off, and rightfully so.

 

[Pulsar]

Yup they most certainly do get money for it. And wtf? $50 fine in Syracuse? Mine was $387, on a right turn no less. Yea they aren't in it for the money.... seems strange that 10 years ago when I got my license, I got a couple speeding tickets within two years for 15 and 20mph over. Both were less than $100.

The last 3 tickets I've had since 2008 were-
Red light camera: $387
Exceeding 65mph: $390
25mph over basic speed law violation: ~$400

Plus they charge you an extra $30+ to "process" your traffic school request. They have also added a "convenience" fee of $10 to pay your ticket online.

Um.... with that list of distinguished 'minor' infractions, I'm not surprised you insist that the laws are just silly

 

[MJinZ]

Not to turn this into a P&N thread but this is why people don't trust the government.

If you want revenue, increase the tax rate (maybe sales tax) and try to justify it with the citizens to prove that it's necessary, not to use traffic laws to increase revenue. Traffic laws should exist solely for safety reasons, PERIOD. Most people would bark at tax increases to keep hiring a few lazy city/county/state employees who don't do sh!t. They should get laid off, and rightfully so.

They do shit.... They are tax collectors dressed in black and blue uniform.

 

[RockinZ28]

Um.... with that list of distinguished 'minor' infractions, I'm not surprised you insist that the laws are just silly

The only citation I've ever contested was the red light camera, because it was a bullshit way to tax drivers with an extremely short yellow time.

I agree with the vast majority of the laws, just not all their penalties. All the things I've been cited for other than the red light, I've been guilty of and have just paid my fine. I don't agree with the amount of money they are charging you these days for simple infractions. Seems basically ~$400 a pop minimum.

If all these laws were just to make the roads safer, fines should be pretty much standard across the US, but they vary heavily even by county.

From the LA times:
Over a two-year period, Los Angeles increased revenues from red light enforcement cameras from $200,000 to $400,000. The culprit? A recent doubling in fines for running red lights when making a right turn.

Here's a nice gem, specifically calling out the BS that California and the city of Riverside will pull:

Many California cities have decided to raise revenue through the use of red light camera tickets. Many of these installations do not meet the legal requirements and contesting the citation can result in dismissal.

For example we have received reports that the city of Riverside has two intersections that are illegal. However they continue to issue tickets and collect the fines. If you contest one of these tickets it is automatically dismissed.

At least nine other cities are issuing "fake" red light camera tickets requesting that you either admit to being the driver or identify the driver. Check to be sure the ticket is from the court, otherwise it is not legal. You are not required to identify the driver.

And another:

A single red light camera in Riverside, California issued $1 million worth of right-hand turn on red tickets in just one month. The automated ticketing machine installed in March at Tyler Street at the entrance to the 91 Freeway has become the most productive of the city’s cameras and now accounts for half of the citations issued by Riverside’s vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia. The camera helped boost the grand total of citations mailed since January 2007 to 82,448 tickets worth $32,532,203.

As in most California cities, Riverside’s program began with tickets issued to drivers primarily at locations where the yellow light provided insufficient warning. A 2001 report by the California State Auditor found that 77 percent of tickets in major cities were issued for split-second violations. This means that motorists who harmlessly entered the intersection a fraction of a second after the light turned red were photographed and sent a ticket. In fact, the trigger is so quick in Riverside that city documents recorded four instances early this year in which the camera generated a citation when one traffic signal facing the driver displayed a red light while a secondary signal still displayed the yellow light. Tickets in these particular cases were canceled before being dropped in the mail.

Over time, drivers learned the location of these cameras and traffic volume has decreased. So the number of citations has likewise diminished. Redflex addresses this problem by regularly installing new cameras with an emphasis on those that focus on “rolling” right-turns on red. Thanks to this strategy, Riverside saw a 28 percent increase in gross revenue over all of 2007 in just the first eight months of 2009. The Tyler Street and 91 camera accounted for nearly all of the boost, generating $1 million worth of citations in April according to data obtained by highwayrobbery.net. The same camera is on track to issue $11 million annually.

Despite the significant revenue figures, Riverside Police insist that the cameras have one purpose: to reduce traffic fatalities.

People still blindly agreeing the laws and fines are for our own good and not money?

 

[RockinZ28]

A few more excerpts from local news stories:

Cash-strapped California, however, is seeing some of the most aggressive efforts to squeeze money out of motorists.

This year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suggested retrofitting 500 city and county traffic cameras to cite not only drivers who blow through red lights but speeders, too. The state, facing a $20 billion deficit, would collect 85 percent of the money, using the projected $338 million to help pay for courts and court security.

The importance of revenue from traffic fines is evident in the competition among governments to control it.

Drivers, meanwhile, already face a greater likelihood of being hit with fines under existing laws. Citations for traffic infractions across Los Angeles County in the last fiscal year jumped more than 150,000 above the previous year's 1.67 million, indicating stepped-up enforcement.

Last year, the state increased the fines for traffic tickets and used the proceeds to help renovate courthouses. The changes included a $35 surcharge on traffic tickets.

The city of Los Angeles has accessed they could raise roughly $61 million by implementing harsher fines for traffic violations.

In the midst of the worst economic recession in decades, Los Angeles residents must now pay absurd traffic fines. Since 2008 the fine for not properly stopping at a red-light has doubled to $381 and the fine for running a red light in Los Angeles, which eight years ago was $271 now is $446.

 

[c3p0]

The companies do get part of the ticket revenue. Around here a company wants to pay to put red light cameras up in order to get a portion of the fines.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/dont_blow_that_red_light_syracuse_intersections.html

Thanks for the link. I was not aware of that. However, it looks like that is how the City pays the Camera Company. They get a percent of the fines instead of a one time payment for the camera installation. At least that's how I read it. Now if they are shortening the yellow light time to catch more people, then that's got to be illegal.

I learn something new every day.

c3p0

 

[jlee]

If I'm driving and a child walks into the street and I hit him without speeding, the government will try to put me in jail for it, but eventually they'll fail to keep me there at great financial ruin to myself.

But if I'm speeding, I lose. Because... semantics.

And me going 66 is illegal and a tractor trailer going 65 is legal because... _____.

When's the last time you were ticketed for 66 in a 65?

 

[brblx]

i've been ticketed for 74 in a 70. cops can lick my sweaty taint.

i'm not sure what the point of this thread is...i thought it was common knowledge that cities set speed limits lower than the civil engineers recommend.

 

[MJinZ]

i've been ticketed for 74 in a 70. cops can lick my sweaty taint.

i'm not sure what the point of this thread is...i thought it was common knowledge that cities set speed limits lower than the civil engineers recommend.

The thread's title was pretty clear. "Speed Limits exist only for municipal revenue".

 

[RockinZ28]

Speeding Ticket Fines
It was only about 10 years ago when speeding ticket fines were considered reasonable. The average fine in 1994 was $65 but today it's about $120 --- nearly doubled in less than 10 years. Most local governments are seeking every viable method to raise revenue. Some states such a California, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, New York and New Jersey have been known for tripling their fines through "various" revenue increasing strategies such as penalty assessments which are merely schemes to extort more money from unsuspecting drivers. These "penality assessments" go straight into the states bank account and is really nothing more than a "road tax.".

California is considered the greediest of all the states. In addition to having to pay a fine for the speeding ticket, the cash-hungry courts add "penalty assessments" to each and every fine, which adds up to a 120% add-on penalty and is tacked onto the traffic ticket fine. For example, let's say you receive a speeding ticket and the fine is $150, once you add the court-imposed penalty assessment, the amount now owed is a whopping $330.

 

[sandorski]

Traffic Fines are Voluntary Taxes. Don't want to pay them, don't exceed the Limits. We should adopt %Income Fines rather than $Fixed Fines.