The true cost of a speeding ticket.....

[L. ed foote]

I think most people go to court just looking to knock the ticket down to a lesser charge/fine.  I've never actually expected to get off completely any time I've gone to court.

That's the reason I go to court; lesser charge/fine. Getting a ticket thrown out is a nice surprise, though rare.

[L. ed foote]

If revenue were a primary driver, LE would be hyper vigilant in its speed traps - in frequency, intensity and proliferation. This is not the case overall.

Only at certain times of the month

[GoCougs]

Some of the overhead you're talking about is just the general overhead of the court system, which will be paid whether or not any traffic citations are issued.

And even a traffic court that has full-time dedicated staff completely separate from any of the other courts will be a sunk cost. You don't abandon a court because it costs money to operate. It costs money to operate every court in the country. Fines don't need to be "profitable"--in the sense that they completely pay for the courts--to factor into the financial decisions of state and local municipalities (i.e., think of the financial position the jurisdiction would be in if it didn't collect any fines--enforcing the law would cost it even more money).


There is an obvious financial incentive to writing traffic tickets. The only questions are how strong is that motive, and does it actually influence behavior. Just because the incentive exists doesn't mean officers act on it. I would say that the strength of the incentive is relatively minor, as the entity that benefits from the fine is rather amorphous and unlikely to be the officer who actually writes the ticket. In terms of countervailing interests, political pressure keeps the police from overexercising their discretion, hopefully.

Actually, I already spoke to the sunk cost of overhead of existing infrastructure (courts, LEOs, etc.). My particular point in that most recent post is costs to process payment (= variable cost).

Many/most LE agencies don't have a court system - they rely on county or state courts. For example, a small city-issued citation's fine is paid to a county or state court (or at least in my state). Call me a cynic but my hunch is that the city receives only a fraction of the fine after it jumps from one government to another.

[GoCougs]

Only at certain times of the month

Tasty.

[Tave]

Actually, I already spoke to the sunk cost of overhead of existing infrastructure (courts, LEOs, etc.). My particular point in that most recent post is costs to process payment (= variable cost).

You think it costs more than a $100 for a traffic court to do paperwork on a $100 ticket? I very much doubt that.

Even if $75 of a $100 ticket is eaten up by processing fees, that's still $25 gravy on each and every ticket.

Many/most LE agencies don't have a court system - they rely on county or state courts. For example, a small city-issued citation's fine is paid to a county or state court (or at least in my state). Call me a cynic but my hunch is that the city receives only a fraction of the fine after it jumps from one government to another.

Well I agree with you there, but that doesn't mean the financial incentive disappears. The money still goes somewhere. Some state entity is collecting the revenue.

[bing_oh]

You think it costs more than a $100 for a traffic court to do paperwork on a $100 ticket? I very much doubt that.

Even if $75 of a $100 ticket is eaten up by processing fees, that's still $25 gravy on each and every ticket.

Actually, my local municipal court runs in the red every year. The remainder is funded from taxes. So, just from that perspective, there is no "gravy" in enforcement.

Well I agree with you there, but that doesn't mean the financial incentive disappears. The money still goes somewhere. Some state entity is collecting the revenue.

As I've already stated, any potential incentive is for the courts and state, not the police who do the citing. That fact alone would seem to undermine the entire idea that citations are written based upon financial incentive. Now, if police officers were given a bonus for every citation, I could agree with that.

[Tave]

Actually, my local municipal court runs in the red every year. The remainder is funded from taxes. So, just from that perspective, there is no "gravy" in enforcement.

As I've already stated, any potential incentive is for the courts and state, not the police who do the citing. That fact alone would seem to undermine the entire idea that citations are written based upon financial incentive. Now, if police officers were given a bonus for every citation, I could agree with that.

I believe I've already addressed each of those points.

Fines don't need to be "profitable"--in the sense that they completely pay for the courts--to factor into the financial decisions of state and local municipalities (i.e., think of the financial position the jurisdiction would be in if it didn't collect any fines--enforcing the law would cost it even more money)... I would say that the strength of the incentive is relatively minor, as the entity that benefits from the fine is rather amorphous and unlikely to be the officer who actually writes the ticket.

[dazzleman]

You think it costs more than a $100 for a traffic court to do paperwork on a $100 ticket? I very much doubt that.

Even if $75 of a $100 ticket is eaten up by processing fees, that's still $25 gravy on each and every ticket.

Well I agree with you there, but that doesn't mean the financial incentive disappears. The money still goes somewhere. Some state entity is collecting the revenue.

The amount of 'gravy' on each ticket depends upon the percentage that are contested.  That's why it can be counterproductive to increase fines beyond a certain point.  If the goal of tickets is to raise money (and I think it's one of the goals), then you have to hit the 'sweet spot' of having the maximum fine you can get away with without large numbers of people contesting.  Once large numbers of people contest their ticket, it costs a lot more to process it in terms of personnel at the courthouse, etc.  But if they just mail it in, the vast majority of the money is gravy, and that's what the politicos want.

And let's be clear that even though officers write tickets, it is ultimately the politicians who set policy on how strict enforcement is, how much tolerance over speed limit there is, etc.

[bing_oh]

And let's be clear that even though officers write tickets, it is ultimately the politicians who set policy on how strict enforcement is, how much tolerance over speed limit there is, etc.

Sorry but that's just not accurate. In 12 years on patrol, I've never written a citation based upon the policies of politicians. My "leeway" over the limit is my own, for example, established over years of enforcement. The only two examples of politicial influence over enforcement would be dedictaed enforcement for DUI (over the limit, under arrest) and seatbelt (click it ot ticket)...and, quite honestly, I don't need to be encouraged to enforce DUI while I couldn't give a rat's ass about seatbelts.

[dazzleman]

Sorry but that's just not accurate. In 12 years on patrol, I've never written a citation based upon the policies of politicians. My "leeway" over the limit is my own, for example, established over years of enforcement. The only two examples of politicial influence over enforcement would be dedictaed enforcement for DUI (over the limit, under arrest) and seatbelt (click it ot ticket)...and, quite honestly, I don't need to be encouraged to enforce DUI while I couldn't give a rat's ass about seatbelts.

I'm not totally buying it.  I'm sure you have a decent amount of discretion, but if you started ticketing a lot of people for going 1 mph over the speed limit and they started complaining to the politicians, you'd somehow hear about it.  The level of political control might vary from place to place, but ultimately the politicians set general approach and strategy on these issues.

[bing_oh]

I'm not totally buying it.  I'm sure you have a decent amount of discretion, but if you started ticketing a lot of people for going 1 mph over the speed limit and they started complaining to the politicians, you'd somehow hear about it.  The level of political control might vary from place to place, but ultimately the politicians set general approach and strategy on these issues.

Well, if I started issuing alot of unreasonable citations that generated complaints or that I was repeatedly getting crammed in court, then I suspect I would get called on the carpet in front of the chief for an explanation. But, considering the conversation at hand is regarding the revenue generating potential of traffic enforcement, then getting called on the carpet for overstringent enforcement is looking at it from the wrong side. A more realistic question would be, what would happen if I was giving alot of warnings and not so many citations. My answer would be, as long as my discretion was reasonable and supportable, it would be a non-issue (at least at my current PD...as I've said, nothing is universal). The other thing you have to consider is, the exact nature of the violation for which I give warnings isn't specifically documented. For example, I would never document the speed of a motorist that's given a warning...that just opens up questions in court about why a citation would be given in one instance and a warning in another.

I'm not at the direct bequest of any politician as a municipal officer...if they want to bitch, then they can bitch to my chief and the shit rolls downhill from there. Sheriff's offices are a different story, considering that deputies work directly for an elected official...which is one of the many reasons why I would never work for an SO. I don't believe that law enforcement and politics mix.

[dazzleman]

Well, if I started issuing alot of unreasonable citations that generated complaints or that I was repeatedly getting crammed in court, then I suspect I would get called on the carpet in front of the chief for an explanation. But, considering the conversation at hand is regarding the revenue generating potential of traffic enforcement, then getting called on the carpet for overstringent enforcement is looking at it from the wrong side. A more realistic question would be, what would happen if I was giving alot of warnings and not so many citations. My answer would be, as long as my discretion was reasonable and supportable, it would be a non-issue (at least at my current PD...as I've said, nothing is universal). The other thing you have to consider is, the exact nature of the violation for which I give warnings isn't specifically documented. For example, I would never document the speed of a motorist that's given a warning...that just opens up questions in court about why a citation would be given in one instance and a warning in another.

I'm not at the direct bequest of any politician as a municipal officer...if they want to bitch, then they can bitch to my chief and the shit rolls downhill from there. Sheriff's offices are a different story, considering that deputies work directly for an elected official...which is one of the many reasons why I would never work for an SO. I don't believe that law enforcement and politics mix.

No, you're not at the direct behest of any politician, but your chief is.

[bing_oh]

No, you're not at the direct behest of any politician, but your chief is.

A good chief isn't...at least not to the degree that enforcement is based upon political considerations. A chief beholden to politicians when it comes to enforcement issues is a recipe for corruption (something that actually isn't unusual in your area, from what I understand).

[dazzleman]

A good chief isn't...at least not to the degree that enforcement is based upon political considerations. A chief beholden to politicians when it comes to enforcement issues is a recipe for corruption (something that actually isn't unusual in your area, from what I understand).

I think it's probably a matter of degree, and highly localized.

[BENZ BOY15]

A good chief isn't...at least not to the degree that enforcement is based upon political considerations. A chief beholden to politicians when it comes to enforcement issues is a recipe for corruption (something that actually isn't unusual in your area, from what I understand).

What about those bills that citizens pass making marijuana the "lowest priority" or some shit like that?

(mainly in California and in Denver)

So do they follow that? Apparently they do since the "penalty" is so low....$150, who wants to do the paper work....but I've always wondered if they follow that.

[dazzleman]

What about those bills that citizens pass making marijuana the "lowest priority" or some shit like that?

(mainly in California and in Denver)

So do they follow that? Apparently they do since the "penalty" is so low....$150, who wants to do the paper work....but I've always wondered if they follow that.

We're talking about speeding tickets here, not pot.  And bing_oh isn't even in California.

[GoCougs]

You think it costs more than a $100 for a traffic court to do paperwork on a $100 ticket? I very much doubt that.

Even if $75 of a $100 ticket is eaten up by processing fees, that's still $25 gravy on each and every ticket.

There is no revenue motive is "profiting" $25 per citation.

[Byteme]

You think it costs more than a $100 for a traffic court to do paperwork on a $100 ticket? I very much doubt that.

Even if $75 of a $100 ticket is eaten up by processing fees, that's still $25 gravy on each and every ticket.

Well I agree with you there, but that doesn't mean the financial incentive disappears. The money still goes somewhere. Some state entity is collecting the revenue.

I don't know about your area but I can't think of any infraction here that costs you as little as $100, parking maybe.  I'd have to look but I think $150-300 is more the norm, with it being automatically doubled in construction zones and I think, school zones.


Get a ticket?  Go ask for defensive driving.  Take the course the ticket vanishes and you can also get a defensive driving course insurance discount.

[Tave]

There is no revenue motive is "profiting" $25 per citation.

Can you please rewrite this so I can understand it?

[hounddog]

I'm not totally buying it.  I'm sure you have a decent amount of discretion, but if you started ticketing a lot of people for going 1 mph over the speed limit and they started complaining to the politicians, you'd somehow hear about it.  The level of political control might vary from place to place, but ultimately the politicians set general approach and strategy on these issues.

The politicians can complain all they want, police have full discretion of the five Ws with respect to writing tickets.  

And, while they may set the general approach, the only person a police officer is actually accountable to is the police chief.  And then, anytime he delves into telling officers who and what to write for he risks judicial scrutiny for "ticket quotas" and/or "ticket fixing" if he starts voiding them.  

Truth be told, if an officer chooses to write people for insignificant infractions all day long there is very little anyone can do about it short of flat out firing him.  Even then, and even in places which are "At Will" such as Michigan, you had better have just cause or the officer can seek legal remedy in civil proceedings.  

However, generally, prodding by administration is enough to solve whatever problem since most people need their jobs.

[hounddog]

Can you please rewrite this so I can understand it?

In fairness to Mr. Blowhard, change the second "is" to "if."

[Tave]

In fairness to Mr. Blowhard, change the second "is" to "if."

It would still be an incomplete/fragmented sentence. "If profiting $25 per citation" what?


I think he meant to write, "There is no revenue motive if 'profiting' is $25 per citation," but I didn't want to put words in his mouth.


But even if that's what he meant to say, it still doesn't make any sense.

[bing_oh]

There is no revenue motive is "profiting" $25 per citation.

I read it as, "There is no revenue motive in "profiting" $25 per citation." I didn't even see the typo until you mentioned it.

[Tave]

I read it as, "There is no revenue motive in "profiting" $25 per citation."

That doesn't make any sense either, but at least it's grammatically correct.

[dazzleman]

Here's a question.  Whatever the cost of a speeding ticket, what percentage of people do you think it actually deters from speeding?  I know very few people who are deterred from speeding by either the threat of a ticket or the fact of having received one.  Maybe some people are, but they seem to be a minority.  Most people just take their chances and are prepared to absorb the cost as long as it doesn't happen too often.

[Tave]

Here's a question.  Whatever the cost of a speeding ticket, what percentage of people do you think it actually deters from speeding?  I know very few people who are deterred from speeding by either the threat of a ticket or the fact of having received one.  Maybe some people are, but they seem to be a minority.  Most people just take their chances and are prepared to absorb the cost as long as it doesn't happen too often.

Simple, just look to your right whenever you pass someone. That loser is deterred, or else he'd be speeding too.

[Tave]

In all seriousness, I think all of us are probably deterred, to one degree or another, by the threat of a ticket, even if we speed.


I speed all the time, but it's not normal for me to drive over 90 mph. I would hit that on every open stretch of interstate I came across if there wasn't a chance of getting popped. I can deal with a regular speeding ticket, but I can't afford to get caught driving huge increments over the posted limit that often.

[dazzleman]

In all seriousness, I think all of us are probably deterred, to one degree or another, by the threat of a ticket, even if we speed.


I speed all the time, but it's not normal for me to drive over 90 mph. I would hit that on every open stretch of interstate I came across if there wasn't a chance of getting popped. I can deal with a regular speeding ticket, but I can't afford to get caught driving huge increments over the posted limit that often.

Very true.  Deterrence is a matter of degree.  There are some people who are deterred by the threat of any ticket, while people like us are willing to accept the consequences of a ticket up to a certain point.  I generally don't care about tickets for under 85 mph or so (on the highway, obviously), but over that, I would become more concerned.

[hotrodalex]

I should probably be more deterred right now, since if I get a ticket within the next year the points will go on my record. You're allowed to take traffic school to remove the points, but only once a year (I just took it last month).

[dazzleman]

I should probably be more deterred right now, since if I get a ticket within the next year the points will go on my record. You're allowed to take traffic school to remove the points, but only once a year (I just took it last month).

Were your parents upset about your speeding ticket?  I know if I'd gotten a speeding ticket at 16, I probably wouldn't have been driving for a while.