8 Questions About Traffic Tickets That Politicians Never Answer

December 18th, 2007 Posted in Traffic Tickets

policecar The classic image of government-endorsed corruption is the “highwayman” with badge and gun extracting money from a compromised traveler with no hope or relief in sight. In the past these scenes were depicted in the wastelands of Mexico, or in the old “Iron Curtain” countries before the Berlin Wall met its deserved end. 

Ironically, these bald-faced, extortionate practices pale in comparison to the institutionalized systems of graft and corruption that exist in the US and the UK.

The exploitation of drivers is so pervasive, intertwined, and accepted as “normal” that it is no longer recognized for the scam it is.

Think about it; traffic laws are created by the ream, every year. Some of them are needed to affect the smooth and safe flow of traffic. Most of the rest are put in place to appease malcontents and special interests with a “cause,” or to squeeze more money out of motorists. A key component of the latter category is the ladling on of layers of traffic fines, supposedly to enhance highway safety. No one seems to notice that traffic fines are ineffective, arbitrary, inequitable and they distort and pervert law enforcement agencies and the courts.

Why is it that those in power aren’t asking questions like these:

  1. How can the courts be viewed as fair and unbiased when much of their operating income is generated from the fines paid by traffic ticket defendants, isn’t there a fairly obvious conflict of interest here?
  2. Where’s the ethical justification for the police to issue hundreds or thousands of tickets to motorists who are driving safely and rationally, but in excess of an arguably dangerous and illegal speed limit?
  3. What moral objective is being served by charging ticket recipients more money to prevent “points” being applied to their driving record?
  4. What is the logic behind fining a driver $300 for running a red light when a police officer issues a ticket, but only $75 when a camera generates the ticket — is the driver getting a break because it’s a lot cheaper for the camera to take a picture then for the cop to write the ticket?
  5. Are we really building a better society by heaping fine upon fine and then suspending licenses because the fines aren’t paid?
  6. Does it improve the system’s chances of collecting its fines by taking away the defendants ability to find and hold a job?
  7. What police officer wants to be thought of as a bagman for the local government, or have his job dictated by how much money he can raise from motorists?
  8. What honest judge wants to work in a court system financially dependent on finding defendants guilty?

The police and the courts should be funded from general tax revenue, not from the proceeds of exploited citizens.

The bottom line is traffic fines don’t really benefit anyone, not even the recipients. This is an inherently corrupt and dysfunctional system that can’t be fixed, it should be discarded, the sooner the better.

Are You A NMA Member? If not, read about the benefits and then join!

Other Related Articles

  1. 20 Responses to “8 Questions About Traffic Tickets That Politicians Never Answer”

  2. By RICK GOLD on Dec 18, 2007

    FOLKS,

    WHAT IS BEING EXPOSED HERE IS THE IMMORAL NEXUS BETWEEN MONEY AND JUSTICE. THAT NEXUS SHOULD NEVER EXIST BUT WE CITIZENS HAVE CONTINUALLY ACQUIESCED SUCH THAT AN IMMORAL NEXUS HAS BECOME AN ACCEPTED “NORM”. AND OF COURSE THAT IMMORAL “NORM” IS NOT CONTESTABLE BECAUSE YEARS OF LEGAL PRECEDENT HAVE ESCONCHED THIS ABOMINATION IN OUR SYSTEMS, OUR PSYCHES, AND OUR SOCIETAL CONVENTIONS.

    A TRULY PITIFUL STATE OF AFFAIRS WHICH, OF COURSE, OUR PERPETUALLY UNIMAGINATIVE AND LACKLUSTER POLITICIANS WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING TO CORRECT. EVEN THOUGH THIS SET OF CONDITIONS IS A DIRECT AFFRONT TO OUR PURPORTED LIBERTY; OR WHAT’S LEFT OF IT .

    RICK GOLD

  3. By E. Meyers on Dec 19, 2007

    THE PHEONIX CAN NOT RISE FROM THE ASHES UNTIL THERE ARE ASHES TO RISE FROM.

    THE SOONER THE BETTER

  4. By Jim Perdiew on Dec 19, 2007

    8 awesome questions we need to get posed in some actionable ways before the public. How can we get some traction with the public rather than with the crooks and charlatans who are elected to office? Referendums? Other ideas?

    JP

  5. By NMA on Dec 19, 2007

    Jim Perdiew asked the question, “How do we get traction with the public—–?”

    To start, just circulate this blog, but take it one step further, a step beyond your normal contacts. Send it to local newspapers, radio talkshows, your local, state, and national elected representatives, and to candidates running for office.

    Tens of millions of people are being ripped off by this institutionalized system of extortion and no one in office or running for office is addressing this issue. They are operating under the assumption that the public accepts this state of affairs, that the status quo is endorsed by John Q. Public, and that there is no political reason to derail the money train.

    It’s about time we “readjusted” their thinking on this issue.

  6. By bill Leavitt on Dec 19, 2007

    I have habitually contested biased and undeserved tickets. I write to my representatives, and occasionally refuse to sign tickets unless they are written correctly with the charge I am guilty of. I pay the fine, and accept the points if guilty. I find it hard to believe that some readers have answered don’t speed and you won’t get a ticket.What are they smoking that seems to separate them for reality? I would like to hear from other parts of Tennessee and learn what the NMA is pushing in legislation for stops like 2 to 3 mph over the limit, burned out lights and failure of an officer to issue a warning seven days to fix them. I was escorted to an Autozone in Florida while I replaced a burned out headlamp.
    Failure to change an address on a drivers license when the county has changed your address over six times in the last 35 years and you have only moved across the street on your own property once costs $110.00 in Fayette County. If your
    registration and license address do not match the officer will ask if all information is correct. Even if you haven’t moved, check the address. The city, county, state governments may have moved you and you did not even know it. I suggest all readers and members of NMA elaborate on these questions and write to their representatives from the local to the state levels. I did before joining NMA and live in the speedtrap capitol of Tennessee. NMA helps me verify my allegations of why traffic law-enforcement has gone from the ” Protect and Serve ” mode to the “Harass and Intimidate” mode. When courteous and law-abiding we do not have to accept one of the local quotas on tickets.

  7. By Grady on Dec 20, 2007

    IMHO, The biggest instigator for safe driving is not the state! Rather it is the insurance companies! They have the special interest groups lobbying the states and congress to impose stricter laws that prevent folks from getting hurt.

    The state cares little about our health, welfare, and safety! What the state cares about is maintaining income! One way to maintain income is traffic violations and donations from special interest groups that lobby congress!

    The bottom line is this: the less money paid out to hospitals and libel suits, the more fund remain in the coffers of the corporate gods.

  8. By James Young on Dec 20, 2007

    {IMHO, The biggest instigator for safe driving is not the state! Rather it is the insurance companies! They have the special interest groups lobbying the states and congress to impose stricter laws that prevent folks from getting hurt.}

    The insurance companies do not instigate safe driving, despite all their claims, which are nothing more than advertising puffery. Insurance companies benefit from the difference between premiums collected and claims paid out. They don’t care if they have to pay out $1 million more in claims if they can raise premiums by $5 million by having surcharges for “violations” of laws prohibiting reasonable and perfectly safe behavior. Get caught going 55 mph in a 50 mph zone? That’ll be $370, thank you, and, of by the way, your insurance company just tacked on a $500 surcharge for 3 years.

    Who supports all of these frivolous laws such as keeping speed limits below optimal levels, points for seatbelts, even points for not having insurance? Who supports RLCs and photoradar? Insurance company lobbyists, who pay perfectly good money to purchase the goodwill of legislators around the nation.

    Those laws don’t make us safer but they make us more controllable by a state that cares not for our safety and well-being but for our quiet submission.

  9. By tracker on Dec 20, 2007

    Grady,
    The most notorious speedtrap, in my opinion, in the state of Tennessee issued me a ticket for 56 in a 45 mph zone several years ago. It did not make the top three speedtraps in Tennessee lately, but it still is. It has been investigated by the local media and I took the newspaper articles with me to court. I also had in my possession copies of the Tennessee Code and the ethical considerations for lawyers and the judiciary. The magistrate and the convening court did not appreciate this. The ticket read “If you do not sign this ticket you will be physically arrested. The wording on the back was that that you were not admitting guilt. In order to traverse the hills and dales of this backwater town below 45 mph with a manual transmission I fortunately had a co-pilot who kept warning me when my speedometer hit 46 mph and almost breaking 50 mph when we sighted the officer as I was down-shifting to a lower gear after topping a hill and braking to slow down. My co-pilot watched as a 5 and a zero register 50, and a slash is midway point possibly indicating 45 mph between a 4 and a zero showing 40. Since I had no idea how fast I was going under 50 I questioned the officer who was apparently from another area because he did not recognize my first three digits on my home phone. The reason this township does not make the top three speedtraps is that it is on an isolated state scenic route where tourists are unaware of its local bullying tactics. I called my insurance agent and he informed me that even though the charges were dismissed at no cost, the ticket actuarial figures going to Nashville raise the insurance rates of highly ticketed areas. Memphis rates are the highest in Tennessee because they have more licensed drivers, registered and unregistered vehicles, and insured and uninsured drivers. These figures fan out to the outlying counties in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. The judge asked me why I was seeking a dropping of the charges and I tried to inform him of what my agent had said. I told him the dismissal left paperwork within that township and I was not guilty. The officer was wrong and I wanted a jury trial unless the officer dropped the charges. Let me simply say it would be like accepting an apology. The officer refused. Without putting up money for fees and bond after the judge dismissed the case he agitatedly said it was not costing me anything. I appreciate the fact the Tennessee Code said I had more rights in the court of law than the lawyer did, and was responsible for my actions. The truth is I told the judge I lost the time it took to write to the states Attorney General and his associate, the cost of two stamps, the time to research the Bill of Rights, the time to come to court in which I was blessed because it was after my work hours, mileage using my vehicle, and missing my Tuesday night favorite television show. I was angry, but quite respectful in the way I addressed the magistrate. I carried only my drivers license and a twenty dollar bill to court in my wallet. The key to respect in the line of traffic law is “Do not be bullied, but maintain respect”. Sometimes the officer is simply doing his job. In court the judge, magistrate, whoever is in charge does not have the final word. The Fourth Amendment in the Bill Of Rights states that “any matter in litigation over twenty dollars you have a right to a trial by jury in the jurisdiction in which you are charged”. The Constitution has not been amended for the inflation of the American dollar since 1791.

  10. By James Young on Dec 25, 2007

    I have this weird idea that public policy, enumerated as laws, should actually accomplish what they were written to accomplish. If the proponents of a law cannot demonstrate that their law actually works, it must be revoked immediately. Thus, if the proponents of artificially low limits cannot show that those limits improve key safety rates (crash, injury and fatality), then the law is a failure and must be rescinded.

  11. By grady on Dec 25, 2007

    Where is a man of the character of Gen. Robert E. Lee?

  12. By Mike on Dec 28, 2007

    Grady, you wrote that you’re entitled to a jury trial. The U.S. supreme Court ruled about 20 years ago that is not the case. I’m unaware of what the state of Tennessee’s constitution says but the Supreme courts ruling involved a DUI case in the state of Wyoming where the maximum penalty at the time was 90 days. The Wyoming courts denied the defendent a jury trial. It went to the U.S. Supreme court which decided that any charge that did not carry a penalty of more than 180 days was a petty crime and the U.S. constitution did not gaurantee a jury trial for petty crimes. Most states consider traffic violations a civil infraction so the rules for a jury trial may be different but the federal courts have been nullifying the constitution for more than a century.

  13. By Mike on Dec 28, 2007

    Sorry Grady , I meant to address that comment to Tracker.

  14. By Joe on Dec 28, 2007

    Recommended reading; “Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution”. If you want to read a good blog by what seems to be a attorney specializing in DUI’s. It’ll open your eyes!! You thought you had rights until…. http://www.duiblog.com/2007/11/06/a-trial-of-generals/

  15. By Joe on Dec 29, 2007

    You all make some pretty convincing arguments esp. Rick. I only wish you’d turn right around and email a copy to your state legislators. I know, I’ve heard the argument that is doesn’t do any good. If you can form a a group of even a small number of people collectively focusing you energy, you might be surprised what you can do. Most of the time you can find sympathetic congressmen. They don’t have to be from your district. The problem is finding and organizing those citizens. I am a long time member of the NMA formerly hoping to attract other Okies to fight abusive traffic control though the state legislature but the NMA will not release any names of members, which is understandable, but how is one going to go about this task unless you can contact citizens in your respective states? I’ve had my name and address circulated twice in the last 20 years and the response was luke warm at best. Most people were “too busy” to get involved. People (drivers) better wake up!
    We may think we live in a high tech time in history but we continue to drive computer controlled vehicles at gravel road speeds with ever increasing congestion, surveillance, tolls, higher fuel prices and abusive law enforcement loaded with high tech tools to capture maximum revenue and cops operating with a attitude of damn the driving public. Isn’t it just lovely driving on our modern roadways now-a-days. The German people are historically known as some of the most conservative, disciplined people in the world and for them to have roadways with no speed limits should tell us something.
    The combination of new laws driven by law enforcement and municipalities, the constant improvement and innovation of technology and the evolving extremist mentality of law enforcement willing to trample all over your rights as a driver, is only going to get worse. While I hate abusive traffic control tactics, it’s no longer just traffic tickets, it’s things like surveillance in the name of Homeland Security. Heard of the state trials of microchips embedded in a drivers license. Read; “States to Track Drivers Through Licenses” http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/front.asp?page=3 It might sound pretty innocent up front but if you actually talk to people who know the capability of this fledgling RFID technology you’ll understand the abusive possibilities. How long before these microchips go from your license to somewhere on your body permanently? How long before babies are laden with these at birth. Many of us already carry badges at work with RFID chips in them. Some companies are already requiring employee’s to have these chips embedded into their body and some states have legalized that use. Of course there will always be those who argue, “if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from the govenment”. Yea right, hold that thought. A case in point, we already know how trustworthy, fair and friendly our justice system works with traffic controls issues. Seatbelts were only voluntary at one time, DUI limits were reasonable at one time…. just to name a few. Through slight changes in the language of the law we went from reasonable to abusive. Why is it that regardless of what your doing, when you see a cop, instead of feeling secure you keep a wary eye out on him/her. Why don’t you instead feel secure and protected? The theoretical way I was taught as a kid not to fear law enforcement and consider them as a friend versa the reality as a adult of 40 + years of driving has turned that idea on it’s head.
    Make no mistake, your friendly governments’ ultimate goal is to know where you are ALL the time. And it’s all for your safety, of course. It may be just on a voluntary basis right now but it only takes a slight change in the law to make RFIDs mandatory for all, not just drivers. You drivers license makes that jump from simply a license proving your qualification to drive to part of a national identity system. And don’t expect your elected officials to be a check against unreasonable assaults on your civil liberties and privacy because they will bend over backwards to accommodate law enforcement. No politician wants the death wish of being labeled as easy on crime or terrorism. Rest assured, your rights take a back seat to law enforcement and homeland security. And if you think the courts are any protection, think again. Activist judges are far more likely to rule in favor of law enforcement and against your rights. If you don’t believe it look back at Supreme Courts rulings the past 20 years. Remember when you could not be pulled over except for firm probable cause. Now probable cause can be just about anything. Remember when the sobriety check points were supposed to be “minor” inconveniences, strictly for DUI checks only. Now they are used for anything the cops decide to use them for. Read; http://www.duiblog.com/2007/11/06/a-trial-of-generals/ If you do any reading at all, by now you should be painfully aware of all this.
    I wish I could be more optimistic but unfortunately I’m not sure whether the American people are any longer willing or capable of recovering from this constant assault on our rights and privacy, such as the few we have left. Nothing short of a rebellion will bring our constitution back into force.
    Some would call people like me alarmists. I don’t know how you can call someone such…. when the future is staring you right in the face! If things such as RFIDs not Big Brother…can someone please tell me what is????????

  16. By RICK GOLD on Dec 29, 2007

    to JOE:

    ABSOLUTELY GREAT POST. THANKS !!

    RICK GOLD

  17. By James Young on Dec 29, 2007

    Joe, call me at 918-381-1604 tonight or tomorrow. That’s a Tulsa cell number but I’m actually in California, Pacific Time.

  18. By tracker on Jan 3, 2008

    Mike,
    In the case of backwater towns and state judicial codes the question to ask is how ethical are the judges or magistrates and how far are they willing to open their fiefdoms to public scrutiny? I had a witness and newspaper reports of several public investigations which the magistrate suppressed from those in line ahead of me for their hearings. Recently I was stopped coming over a hill on a two lane highway and was pulled for supposedly going 38 in a 30. A black SUV had just passed me and while I listened to the officer who was only going to give me a warning ticket I heard the woman in the SUV argue she did not know what the speed limit was. The other officer raised his voice and said, “Lady I clocked you at 58 in a 30″. The officer writing my ticket changed mine from 38 to no seat belt because it was a safety violation. My three grandchildren were all buckled up and we were discussing how the SUV had passed us going uphill and ignored the double no passing lines. I know I was going 30 and less because was right on my bumper for over a mile and my grandson is studying for his learners permit. The key word to your comment was Civil Infractions. Traffic regulations throughout the United States vary and most speed-trap towns are in violation of unknowing motorists civil rights. the fine for a seat belt is $25.00, but the local jurisdiction wanted all associated fees adding another $64.00 to the cost. I mailed the $25.00 twice, and missed my court date so they doubled the fine. Legal extortion!

  19. By Joe on Feb 3, 2008

    James Young, yicks I just now noticed your last post. Sorry I haven’t been on here the last few days. Been hecktic at work lately. I’ll see if I can give you a call one of these days if that’s OK with you. I work evenings in Tulsa.

  20. By Joe on Feb 3, 2008

    James Young on Dec 25, 2007, you have a great idea but it’ll be a cold day in Hell before we ever see such a innovative idea like that become reality. I’ve had this idea for a long time that if you can prove that a speed limit your citied for violating is set wrong then you should be able get your citation dismissed. Most smaller jurisdictions don’t even employ traffic engineers so local municipal speed limits end up being a political action instead of a scientific one. But if we ended up having reasonable speed limits everywhere because of all these court challenges, hows a municipality gonna make any money?? Once again, it all boils right back down to money.
    I don’t know much about other states but the Municipal League, which represents most cities and towns in the state, is one of the more powerful lobby groups in the state of Oklahoma. Law Enforcement groups are another. Many times they work together because what’s good for one is often good for the other too. Anything that affects their pocketbook (coffers) is going to be meet with stiff, aggressive resistance in a state legislature. I don’t want anyone to be discouraged from trying. If enough drivers in a state reach critical mass it’s amazing how few it takes to get legislators attention. Remember, traffic laws are political in nature often founded on unscientific or emotional basis. It will take political solutions to undue the last couple decades of decay of driving freedoms.
    And it ’s no longer enough for LEO’s and the like to lobby the state legislature. It’s not uncommon for retired or ex-law enforcement officials to run for public office….. and win. Last legislative session, a retired OHP lawmen single handedly got the Oklahoma speed trap law rescinded right under the noises of everybody. It just so happened that at the time, two or three of the municipalities he represented were under prohibition from the use of the law. Sure he was shrewed and used underhanded tactics but he accomplished his mission. Nothing that most traffic cops don’t do on a daily basis. What else would you expect?

  21. By RICK GOLD on Feb 3, 2008

    FOLKS,

    JAMES YOUNG WRITES (ON 12/25/07):
    “I have this weird idea that public policy, enumerated as laws, should actually accomplish what they were written to accomplish. If the proponents of a law cannot demonstrate that their law actually works, it must be revoked immediately. Thus, if the proponents of artificially low limits cannot show that those limits improve key safety rates (crash, injury and fatality), then the law is a failure and must be rescinded.” JOE, TODAY, CONCURRS BUT QUESTIONS THE POSSIBILITY OF REMOVING SUCH A LAW: “James Young on Dec 25, 2007, you have a great idea but it’ll be a cold day in Hell before we ever see such a innovative idea like that become reality.”

    WHAT BOTH OF THESE EARNEST GENTLEMEN FAIL TO REALIZE IS THAT LAWS OF THIS TYPE, EVEN IF INEFFECTIVE VIS A VIS THEIR STATED GOALS, ARE STILL VERY EFFECTIVE WITH REGARD TO REVENUE GENERATION AND INORDINATE CONTROL OF THE POPULACE; THEIR UNSTATED GOALS.

    SO, FOR A LEGISLATOR, PASSING INEFFECTIVE LAW, WHILE NOT CLASSIFIABLE AS A “WIN WIN” IS, INDEED, JUSTIFIABLE AS A “CAN’T LOSE”. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE TO PASSING INEFFECTIVE LAW. EVEN IF IT ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE OR NOTHING, IT STILL GENERATES REVENUE AND COERCES THE CITIZENRY!!! WHAT’S NOT TO LIKE ?!?!

    THE ABOVE SAID, WHY WOULD ANY LEGISLATOR OR PUBLIC POLICY WONK GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT REMOVING AN INEFFECTIVE LAW OR NOT PASSING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE ??

    THE NEXT TIME YOU HEAR THE PHRASE “WE’RE A NATION OF LAWS”, THINK ABOUT IT FOR A BIT AND CONSIDER IT IN THE CONTEXT DELINEATED ABOVE. HOPEFULLY, A LIGHT OR TWO WILL COME ON.

    REGARDS ALL.

    RICK GOLD

Post a Comment