TheAgitator.com
Fighting Budget Deficits With Traffic Fines
Friday, March 26th, 2010Angrifying* story from the A.P.:
Shomari Jennings was willing to pay the $70 ticket he received for driving without a seatbelt, but not the slew of tacked-on fees and penalties that ballooned the cost more than tenfold. Every $10 of his base fine triggered a $26 “penalty assessment” for courthouse construction, a DNA identification program, emergency medical services and other programs…
In Los Angeles, city officials are thinking about doubling red-light cameras to 64 intersections. Last year, 44,000 red-light camera tickets were issued in the city, netting more than $6 million…
The fine for running a red light is nearly $500 when city and county fees combined with various penalty assessments, which are set by the Legislature, and traffic school are factored in. The majority of the red-light camera citations, however, were for making right turns without a full stop, a $381 violation.
It’s hard to keep track of all the bullshit public policy going on in this article. A $70 seatbelt violation—which shouldn’t be a fine in the first place—grows to over $200 because of “penalty assessments” imposed in part to pay for the pensions and benefits of the public employees who both administer these policies, and who spent the state into oblivion in the first place. Then L.A. wants to make city roads less safe so it can collect more revenue from outrageously expensive red light camera fines.
Also, maybe I’m just not up to snuff on the latest traffic cam technology, but how is a red light camera that captures a stationary photo able to identify a motorist failed to come to a complete stop before making an otherwise legal right turn?
(*Yes, I made this word up.)
Much as I hate getting a traffic ticket, at least I have a lot of control over that, unlike my taxes, which are “assessed” by government fiat.
Red light cameras capture video. You get a URL to the site when they mail you the ticket.
“Also, maybe I’m just not up to snuff on the latest traffic cam technology, but how is a red light camera that captures a stationary photo able to identify a motorist failed to come to a complete stop before making an otherwise legal right turn?”
Simple! This computer code will explain it:
if (CurrentCar is turning right) and (DiceRoll(1d20) == 1)
SendTicket(CurrentCar);
It’s like rolling for damage in D&D Advanced Rules, if you fail to make the saving roll, you get the ticket.
I believe Galius is correct. A video is recorded and a human(working for a company with a financial interest) makes a determination on the legality of the right turn.
Big brother is watching over you!
This has been going on for years and not just with red-light cams.
Want your due process? You can have it but remember that as outrageous as the fines and additional penalties are, it is still cheaper to pay the fine than to try and fight it in court.
That’s no accident (pun intended).
It’s extortion, plain and simple.
If this works so well,why can’t video prof be used in all dui cases to prove reckless drinving as a reason for a stop?Of course I hear all the time that without blood or breath most would be hard to prove.There’s also studies showing that cameras tend to mke intersections more dangerous,not less.
Galius is correct. My wife got nabbed by a right turn video awhile back.
Could go to a website to watch her roll right thru the right turn without stopping.
You shouldn’t trust red-light cameras to work properly. They’re so fine-tuned that you can easily set them off, and when you do whichever “law enforcement official” reviews the ticket is going to approve it. The last red light ticket I got it even said on the violation that I had gone through less than a tenth of a second after the light had turned, but that didn’t stop them from sending me a bill for $80. Now I just sit stubbornly at all red lights with cameras, even if making a turn, and I slam on my brakes to avoid close calls. People can honk at me all they want, but fuck ‘em, they’re not going to pay my fine.
So much public policy these days is based on the assumption that people can’t help but to break laws which are far too stringent.
My local jurisdiction (Centennial, CO), uses red light cameras. They also have regular false positives, and a traffic officer oversees every ‘violation’ before issuing a ticket. I don’t think they record video/rolling right turns, just entering the intersection during a red light.
*Angrifying. I’m going to use that.
Take a pic of your local politicians license plate number and paste it over yours and run all the red lights you want. :-)
Why are these videos/photos not considered hearsay and barred accordingly?
It seems like, by automating the process, the prosecution has eliminated all confrontable accusers. Is there anyone a defendant can examiner to ask “Were you there? Is the video/photo is accurate?”
@capn_amurka if they were then the gubmint wouldn’t be able to collect their money. The law is an evolving thing and the Constitution is a living document that needs to be able to adapt…to the government’s need to raise revenue.
Court costs often surpass the actual fine. Been that way for years. See your local county court — hose if you dont believe me
capn_amuka: they are not hearsay provided that they are only used to show that which they actually show, which is that a specific car did something.
Hmm, I guess it depends where you are. When I moved out of California (in 2001), the CVC (California Vehicle Code) specifically stated that the arresting officer (a ticket is issued in lieu of an arrest) MUST be the observing officer. That is to say that if the officer that issues the ticket didn’t witness the infraction, then the court finds itself with no jurisdiction over said infraction and must dismiss the ticket. Now, I don’t know if this has changed, but if it hasn’t then the camera itself must issue the ticket (and, last I checked, a camera cannot print a ticket and mail it to you).
As a side story, I was sitting in court waiting to argue my ticket (which I successfully did) and I heard this same argument from the judge as he tossed someone else’s ticket. They had been caught speeding by an airplane and the cop that gave him the ticket wrote “airplane” in the line where it asks for how the speed was determined. The guy (a lawyer, I’m sure) argued that the witnessing officer (the airplane pilot) wasn’t the arresting (or ticketing) officer. The judge reprimanded the cop for being an idiot and not following the guidelines for aerial traffic enforcement and dismissed the infraction.
The American people are just sheep to be fleeced. It’s too messed up to fix.
#19 JS
Agreed. Who is going to fix it? You mean me? I have to get out of this chair and do something? Fuck that. Don’t we pay people to do this stuff for us? Oh wait, those are the people too busy with fucking us with our own money.
@ #19
If God didn’t want them sheared, he wouldn’t have made them sheep
#19 JS
There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t wanna say, ‘Fuck it. Y’all get what you deserve.’ Then I realize that I’m one of “y’all”, and so I go on and fight another day. Even if that fighting is just angrified fist shaking at the tv/computer/radio/neighbor, The Man ain’t gonna wear me down.
@capn_amurka and Nando
They’re not hearsay because they’re not statements. Hearsay in (virtually) all situations has to include words. That said, a state court system could require officers to be present, I suppose, but I’d be interested to see if they call videos hearsay. I assume a procedural goof lead to the ruling.
That said, I think my biggest problem with these cameras is not the principle of them. I don’t see there being anything wrong with cameras if (1) they weren’t implemented by parties with financial interest in them catching people and (2) there wasn’t better shit for public money to go to–specifically, back to the source of that money, you and me. If money were not an issue and there wasn’t so much room for corruption/error they’d be just fine in my book. Alas, that isn’t the case.
the former police chief of St. Louis County retired and became the largest salesperson of these cameras to St. Louis municipalities. Don’t worry, there is absolutely no chance of corruption here.
there’s a group in England that takes gasoline-filled tires and puts them over traffic cameras and lights them- a brilliant solution! Watch for these cameras to become tools for fighting terrorism…
http://boingboing.net/2009/11/21/traffic-cameras-used.html
“A $70 seatbelt violation—which shouldn’t be a fine in the first place—grows to over $200 because of “penalty assessments” imposed in part to pay for the pensions and benefits of the public employees who both administer these policies, and who spent the state into oblivion in the first place.”
Oh my god. It actually happened.
I actually agreed with every word Radley Balko wrote in a sentence.
Mark your calendars!
So gubbmints jack up fines/fees on aberrant or undesirable behavior ultimately making them dependent on said pathology? I’m having one of my WTF? moments here …
“Red light cameras capture video. You get a URL to the site when they mail you the ticket.”
Time for theredlightcameravideolies.com
“So gubbmints jack up fines/fees on aberrant or undesirable behavior…”
Ask yourself: “abberrant” or “undesirable” *to* *whom*?
Where’s the damage? Who’s harming who?
Okay, at the risk of angrifying everybody…
I’m a professional driver. A record of traffic violations could cost me my job and/or make it difficult if not impossible to find a new one. So I don’t break the law.
I am completely indifferent to the location of police officers, traffic cameras, or any other enforcement device.
Granted, the use of any technology raises the possibility of a malfunction, but there’s no going back. Now, it’s just a part of the objective risk.
(California was one of the last states to adopt the use of radar. The CHP had to “pace” a vehicle by traveling the same speed either on the same road or a frontage road and, believe me, they were good at it.)
“Now, it’s just a part of the objective risk.”
It’s a matter of right v. wrong, (i.e., did you hurt anyone?) not “risk” to your job.
#30 | Anthony Knox |
‘…So I don’t break the law….’
I almost snorted my soda out of nose! They don’t care about whether people are breaking the law- it’s the revenue. Shorter yellow lights, hidden speed limit signs, parker meters that text cops when they expire, dui checkpoints busting people who haven’t been drinking, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
We’re all breaking the law. Stick around and prepare to be angrified.
Every $10 of his base fine triggered a $26 “penalty assessment” for courthouse construction, a DNA identification program, emergency medical services and other programs.
Maybe I’m confused on the concept, but isn’t the damned fine the “penalty assessment”?
I really need to get those “Pay up, human ATM” stickers to go on poles at red-light camera intersections printed up…
“It’s a matter of right v. wrong, (i.e., did you hurt anyone?) not “risk” to your job.”
Matt,
Whether it’s right or wrong is a philosophical discussion that, quite frankly, doesn’t interest me, at least as a driver.
We’re all free to work to change traffic laws or how they’re enforced, but that’s a separate issue from what I think is an appropriate response when I’m on the road.
I’d be the first to admit that, at some point, it’s just a game we play, or that there are plenty of traffic laws that don’t contribute to highway safety in any meaningful way and that, in fact, there are some situations when it’s safer to break the law than to follow it, all of which are irrelevant when one is actually driving.
“They don’t care about whether people are breaking the law- it’s the revenue.”
Marty,
I agree completely but, again, the motivation for enhanced enforcement doesn’t have any bearing on my response.
I just try to do everything I can to make sure that they don’t get any extra revenue from me.