Whoops... :(

[dazzleman]

The fine goes to the state in NYS. The only way a local jurisdiction keeps the money is if its a local law violation.

I thought only the surcharge went to the state in New York.  Maybe they've changed the setup.

[Soup DeVille]

The fine goes to the state in NYS. The only way a local jurisdiction keeps the money is if its a local law violation.

And the local jurisdiction never, ever receives any money from the State, do they?

[the nameless one]

This part: "There are no "financial benefits" for most agencies or locales"

That statement is true.

[the nameless one]

And the local jurisdiction never, ever receives any money from the State, do they?

In terms of grant money, sure. For things like traffic enforcement, etc. As has been stated though, you are oversimplifying things if you think there is a direct line between ticket fines and money that eventually goes to an agency. If an agency doesn't make grant applications, for instance, they aren't going to get the grant money.

[Soup DeVille]

In terms of grant money, sure. For things like traffic enforcement, etc. As has been stated though, you are oversimplifying things if you think there is a direct line between ticket fines and money that eventually goes to an agency. If an agency doesn't make grant applications, for instance, they aren't going to get the grant money.

Oh, gee, you have to fill out paperwork!

Money goes to the state. The state spends that money. If the state had less money they wouldn't be able to give out as many grants, or fund as many programs.

Some of the programs the state funds are specifically intended to collect fines.

It is exactly as simple as that.

[Soup DeVille]

That statement is true.

The post you made directly after this one directly contradicts this post.

[TurboDan]

Ugh.  We're just going in circles now.

[dazzleman]

Ugh.? We're just going in circles now.

You noticed?.....

[TheIntrepid]

Ugh.  We're just going in circles now.

Thanks for the heads-up, Daniel!!! :P



I'm just playing, man.

[the nameless one]

The post you made directly after this one directly contradicts this post.

Not at all.

[the nameless one]

Oh, gee, you have to fill out paperwork!

Money goes to the state. The state spends that money. If the state had less money they wouldn't be able to give out as many grants, or fund as many programs.

Some of the programs the state funds are specifically intended to collect fines.

It is exactly as simple as that.

Those grants address issues that the people, through their elected representatives, feel are important to fund. If the funds weren't there through monies received in the general fund from fines, the amount would simply be raised by income taxation. Its not like the grants will go away as long as there is support for them.

Its "not as simple as that" as you claim.

[James Young]

Hemi666 writes:

I don't like that attitude.  I've been busted a few times and every time I deserved it.  I was speeding and I got caught.  . . .He got caught...fair and square

There is nothing ?fair and square? about speeding citations.  They are an unnecessary adjunct to but not a part of the Universal Rule of Right of Way (URROW) that we use as the legal solution to an organizational problem.  Aside from the blatant use of speeding citations to fund municipal coffers, there is no legitimate benefit from having speed limits and none of the various excuses used throughout their history have proved true. 

[Soup DeVille]

Not at all.

Exactly how is a state grant funding traffic enforcement not a financial benefit derived from engaging in traffic enforcement activities?

[James Young]

I think most would agree 15 over does deserve a ticket on all but the largest and most barren of freeways.

I don't agree at all.? The only reason to give a citation is an egregiously dangerous act, one that results in a crash, or obstructing the normal flow of traffic.? Since the purpose of all the new designs and improvements is to speed up the flow of traffic, trying to slow it down is silly.

Nonetheless, as at least a few have stated, that's the game: people know the consequences if caught.

Continuing to improve traffic safety is an important consideration and not a game, although most cops and many drivers treat it as such.

I, like many, don't want to take at least half a day to go to a court date; in this specific case my only recourse would be to lie - which I'm not going to do.

If all or even half the ticket recipients went to court, the system would shut down in a single day.

[James Young]

Catman writes in Reply #49:

We don't do hardly any enforcement on the highway, the state does. 

The State of Oklahoma (where I'm finishing up disposing of my uncle's estate) just rescinded a law that prohibited small towns and villages from enforcing traffic laws on state, federal and Interstate highways that had been in effect about a year.  As of yesterday, all the little speedtraps went back into operation, collecting lots of money but having no effect on key traffic safety measures. ¹

  Crash-, injury- and fatality-rates, each per 100 million VMT (vehicle miles traveled).

[BMWDave]

James, please refrain from making blanket statements.  The purpose of this category is for LEOs to lend their advice on matters pertaining to cars, not for people to beat up on the LEOs.

[James Young]

Speeding isn't a game- it's a dangerous thing and it 's results often kill people.?

I agree, speeding is not a game and speeding citations are not a game.? However, that does not make them a legitimate measure to be used to perform whatever the reason du jour is for speed control.? Speeding is not dangerous, otherwise the International Space Stationwould not be habitable.? ?Law enforcement and insurance companies have been trying for nearly sixty years? to prove that "speed kills" but facts are stubborn things and just don't support that assertion.? We now have more drivers driving more cars on more roads at higher speeds than ever but the key safety rates just keep improving.

For every 10 mph more you travel the stopping distance quadrupples- or so the accident investigations god in his classes-
Dr. Daniel G. Lee, Ph.D., Director of Highway Traffic Safety Programs, Civil & Environmental Engineering,? Michigan State University.

Excuse me?? If my Bimmer stops from 60 mph in, say 150 feet, then if I stop from 70 mph, it takes 600 feet?? Then when I stop from 80 mph, it will take 2,400 feet?? I could coast to a stop and still beat that.

[James Young]

James, please refrain from making blanket statements.? The purpose of this category is for LEOs to lend their advice on matters pertaining to cars, not for people to beat up on the LEOs.

What I wrote is true.  If the readers want to read [sometimes, much of the time, most of the time] in place of [all the time], please be my guest; I won't argue that.  The phenomenon I described ("testilying") is real as given to us by LEOs themselves.  Further, courts generally do not believe traffic defendants as anybody with any observational skills can ascertain for themselves in asingle sesson of court.  The truth is sometimes ugly.

As to the value of the advice given by some of the LEOs, I believe that they could learn much more from the readers than the readers can learn from the LEOs.  Much of what they assert just does not stand up to critical analysis.  If they are so easily offended, perhaps they should go into a different profession.

[Soup DeVille]

James, please refrain from making blanket statements.? The purpose of this category is for LEOs to lend their advice on matters pertaining to cars, not for people to beat up on the LEOs.

"Come here to lament your ticket, get some tips on going to traffic court, or talk about any of the legal aspects of cars and driving. Our resident LEOs often put in their .02 as well!"

That doesn't seem to jibe with the forum description.

[Champ]

Excuse me?  If my Bimmer stops from 60 mph in, say 150 feet, then if I stop from 70 mph, it takes 600 feet?  Then when I stop from 80 mph, it will take 2,400 feet?  I could coast to a stop and still beat that.

You forgot to add reaction time traveled also, but I still think quadruple is a bit much.  By a lot.

[Soup DeVille]

You forgot to add reaction time traveled also, but I still think quadruple is a bit much.? By a lot.

It is, and i have to believe that that's simply a misquote.

Reaction time travelled would be directly proportional to the percentage of increase of speed: The reaction time is the same at 90 as it is at 60: you just travel farther in that time. Given an average reaction time of 0.75 seconds, your "reaction travel" would be 66 ft at 60 MPH, and 99 ft at 90 MPH. Looking at old car magazines, a believable average stop impending lockup from 60 MPH is 250 ft, so its fair to say it takes about 316 feet to stop from 60 MPH.

Assuming that a single stop from 90 won't cause appreciable brake fade, and referring to Newton's old friend? x = x0 + v0t + (1/2) at^2., we can derive the approximate stopping distance from there. "a" (acceleration) will be equal for both equations, and we're not concerned with "t" (time), so all we have to do is plug in 250 ft for vO on the first equation, solve for x: plug that x into the second equation and solve that one for vO. Or we can leave all the numbers out of it and simply add those two equations together and solve for x, which gives you x= a * v^2.

Or to take the geek out of it: Braking distance= acceleration times the square of speed: Or that that same car that stopped from 60 in 316 ft will stop from 90 in 662 ft: (not 20,224 ft!)

So, it's fair to say that doubling your speed will almost quadruple your reaction time including braking distance: which means that rohan's statement is true in one case and one case only: It will take you four times the distance to stop from 20 MPH as it will from 10 MPH.

And people were trying to play "gotcha" on me with high school level trig?

[hounddog]

You forgot to add reaction time traveled also, but I still think quadruple is a bit much.? By a lot.

I have forgotten some of what I knew, however, that is in fact what Dr. Lee is teaching.? Rohan is a level six accident investigator, and knows quite a bit.? What I think he was trying to say, was that the inertia grows? with every mile per hour and conversly so is the stopping distance in relation to the gained inertia.?

It is not as simple as adding up the sum total of face forward stopping distances, but rather includes reaction times and? ?Initial Velocity, Coeficient of Friction, Grade,? Gravity, Mass (which actually cancels out the equation).? For instance, at about 150mph you are traveling the distance of one football field every second, or roughly 300 fps.? If you go to full stop the car it may require quadrupple the distance to stop due to brake fade, reaction time,? according to Dr. Lee's teaching combined with basic physics; the above mentioned factors as well.? Another factor not taken into account is brake fade.? Brake fade is where the glues used to bond the friction agents in brake pads heats to the point where it becomes gaseous.? The gas then creates a barrier which will not allow the pad to actually make contact with the rotor, instead it hovers just above the surface of the rotor , but does have a friction affect due to the compression of the gases,  and will greatly increase stopping distances.? All brake pads are subject to this phenomenum, and it occurs very quickly often causing stopping distances to more than double.? So if your car is traveling at 75 mph and your brakes experience brake fade you could in fact travel several hundred feet or more before stopping.?  The only way to limit this is by Burnishing the brakes when they are brand new, out of the box.

The parent equation would be;
Vf2=Vo2+2ad

Vf= Final velocity
Vo=Initial velocity
a= Acceleration rate
d=Distance traveled during acceleration

When calculating you assume Final Velocity of zero- which is the total speed when stopped.? Based on this, Distance traveled during braking can be solved.

d=-Vo2/(2a)

The distance should be positive if a negative acceleration rate is used.

acceleration rate is calculated by multipling the acceleration due to gravity by the sum of the coeficient of friction and grade of the road.? This is the final step in calculating braking distance;

d=V2/(2g(f+G))

d= Braking distance (ft)
g= Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
G= Road grade as a percentage= for 8% use 0.02
V= Vehicle initial speed (ft/sc)
f= Coeficient of friction between the tires and roadway surface

In other words;
Initial Speed;? 60
Grade; 0% (or 0.00)
Coefficient of friction;? 0.29?
Braking distance;? 413.6 ft

That coeficient of friction is for pavement which is wet.? Most roadway surfaces are about 0.40 or higher up to a 1.0 which would be the roughest damn road you have ever been on.

[hounddog]

Given an average reaction time of 0.75 seconds, your "reaction travel" would be 66 ft at 60 MPH, and 99 ft at 90 MPH.

I was reading through some notes from my last class on traffic crash reconstruction we were quizzed on stopping distance vs. reaction time vs. sight distance vs. centripical force... etc.   I came across this in my handwriting in the border of the class text:
"Some drivers have a reaction time of less than one second while others take as long as 3.5 seconds.  Reaction time depends on several factors to include; fatigue, weather, experience, time of day, properties of hazard ie size and shape and color.  UofM traffic safety studies have shown the average driver can react in 2.5 seconds or less.  Therefore the brake reaction time normally used should be 2.5 seconds."  So I guess you need to adjust your math, according to MSU and Dr. Lee. 

[Catman]

Hounddog, James is the Rosie O'Donnell of speed enforcement discussions and often has an extreme point of few that's even further in the opposite direction than most cops.  While I agree that stereotypical, blanket statements are uncalled for, he is often not rude or disrespectful.  He has shown in the past that he is very supportive of LE just not the speeding enforcement part.

[TheIntrepid]

Catman, did you get my PM?

[dazzleman]

Hounddog, James is the Rosie O'Donnell of speed enforcement discussions and often has an extreme point of few that's even further in the opposite direction than most cops.? While I agree that stereotypical, blanket statements are uncalled for, he is often not rude or disrespectful.? He has shown in the past that he is very supportive of LE just not the speeding enforcement part.

Rosie O'Donnell?? That's a pretty damning indictment, Greg.....

This is one of those arguments that's going nowhere.? I'll sum up my own views, and then duck for cover:

1.? Rules are meant to guide wise men, and restrain fools.? For that reason, we need traffic laws, and they need to be enforced with meaningful penalties.? This is for the overall safety and greater good of society, and for that reason, I support enforcement in concept, even when I am the target of it.

2.? Reasonable people can disagree about what type of enforcement is best.? Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis on speed enforcement over other types, but I understand the practical reasons for this.? I also think speed limits are set too low in many cases, which serves to make lawbreakers out of the majority of drivers.

3.? When you make lawbreakers out of the majority of drivers, the social stigma of being a lawbreaker is gone, and it is impossible to impose meaningful penalties.? That is the situation we have right now with speed enforcement.? Penalties are too weak to really discourage committed speeders, and the most powerful deterrent of all -- social stigma -- is gone.

4.? This situation also blurs the line between real dangerous driving, and driving at a reasonable safe but illegal speed.

5.? LEOs are not primarily responsible for this situation.? The citizens are, because we are hypocritical and make contradictory demands on our politicians and police.? We want the law to restrain other people, but leave us alone.? We want to nail people who go more than 5 mph through our own neighborhoods, while we speed through somebody else's neighborhood.

6.? The financial incentive that exists to write tickets for revenue accrues to the politicians, not LEOs.? The politicians spend the money.? Maybe they throw the LEOs a few crumbs occasionally, but the general MO is to give the department as little as possible, and use the money for other programs that the politicians think will get them votes.? Again, this is ultimately the fault of the citizens for putting these people in power.

7.? I decry this broad trend we have to address every problem with a tightening of laws rather than enforcing the laws we have.? I think it's the diametrically wrong approach.? Speed enforcement is only one example.? There is a trend toward lowering the BAC at which a person can be charged with DUI.? This simply brings more marginal cases into the system, those least likely to cause an accident.? Better to put the resources into going after drunks with a higher BAC.? Ditto with gun control -- enforce the laws we have before passing new ones.? With speed limits, there is also too much of a tendency to put the speed limit down to, say, 25 mph on residential streets because we're concerned about the guy who drives around at 45 mph.? Let's go after the guy who goes 45 mph, but we don't need to put the speed limit at a painfully low speed that nobody will follow in order to do that.

8.? I think that unless you were framed by a crooked LEO, which happens occasionally but not often, if you get a ticket, it's your own fault.? That's the attitude I've always taken when I've gotten nailed.? I can't honestly think of a case of anybody I know getting a ticket who didn't deserve it, from a legal standpoint.? If you don't like the law, work to change the law, and don't spend time blaming those who are charged with administering it.? We all know the laws, or should, and know what we can get away with and what will lead to a roadside encounter with an LEO.? If you can't handle the prospect of getting nailed, stay within tolerance.? If, like me, you are prepared to run the risk of a ticket in order to drive beyond tolerance, then be prepared to accept the consequences if and when it does happen.

9.  When you do get nailed, take it with a stiff upper lip; don't cry like a little bitch.  For me, it's just a point of pride.  I was never willing to give an authority figure the satisfaction of knowing that he had the power to really upset me.  Even if I got a punishment that was killing me, I pretended it wasn't, and took the "thank you sir, may I have another"  attitude.  I think that a lot better than doing stuff you know could get you in trouble, and then pissing and moaning when that actually happens.

[James Young]

Hounddog, James is the Rosie O'Donnell of speed enforcement discussions and often has an extreme point of few that's even further in the opposite direction than most cops.? While I agree that stereotypical, blanket statements are uncalled for, he is often not rude or disrespectful.? He has shown in the past that he is very supportive of LE just not the speeding enforcement part.

Catman, thanks for the kind words, although I prefer to be known as the Bill Maher of speed enforcement discussions.  Rosie and I do like women though. 

[rohan]

although I prefer to be known as the Bill Maher of speed enforcement discussions.?

Yeah - I can see that- your both tools who have no real grasp on things happening outside of your little planet!? :P

[James Young]

Yeah - I can see that- your [sic] both tools who have no real grasp on things happening outside of your little planet!? :P

Or perhaps we speak the uncomfortable truth.   Think of me what you will; it won't change what the facts. 

I suspect my grasp is greater than you wish.

[James Young]

houndog writes in Reply #88:

Your original argument equated that municipalities rake in large sums of cash from the citations they write, while Rohan accurately described how the money is divided up in Michigan.  Then you go on to say that even though the municipality does not receive much of that money it is "slight of hand" and it is all the same.  You can not have it both ways, having them writing tickets and not getting much in return, but still having it them greatly benefiting from it.  Rohan was right, the issuing municipality does not receive much in the way of monetary gains when citations are issued.  Period.

Michigan is hardly the universe of driving experience.  State laws vary as to distribution.  In my own Texas, even DPS cites are handled in different level courts (JP, municipal, county) and that distribution varies as well. The municipalities whose officers write cites keep the money.  In Oklahoma, the towns and villages that write the cites keep the money, which is why we have an explosion of speedtraps in villages throughout the state.  California is very similar to Texas with multiple courts for Chippie cites and most money staying at the original level of jurisdiction.

Stringtown, OK is typical of such places:  276 residents, median income less than $15,000, 30%+ unemployment.  They do have US 69 running along side the village and they ?annexed? about 12 miles of the right-of-way to become part of their jurisdiction, i.e., to expand their hunting ground.  They have 12 officers and six patrol vehicles; there are no stop signs or lighted signals on the highway; the only business for years was a convenience store, now there is a tribal casino just north of town. 

During the past year, just rescinded two days ago, Stringtown was prohibited by state law from enforcing traffic law on a federal highway because of past abuses and they are near bankruptcy. 

Their budget for 2003 showed (this is from memory since my copy is in storage) revenues of $200,000, of which $175,000 came from speeding fines.  They do nothing other than traffic enforcement and that only on US 69; they respond to and investigate no other crimes because that is handled by the county sheriff.  The officers are not CLEET certified and make minimum wage as far as I can tell.

Their revenue is used almost exclusively to pay for the officers, the patrol cars, the mayor (fulltime farmer, part-time mayor) and the ?judge,? who is not even a college graduate.  Thus, we have a cycle of writing tickets to make fines to collect money that is used to buy officers and cars, which are used to write more tickets. 

I dwell on Stringtown because it is notorious, because I have their budgets and financial statements and because they are emblematic of villages in Oklahoma and elsewhere. Even the City of Tulsa has announced that they will step up traffic enforcement for the money, even adding more officers to do so.

The key point is that all of the money collected by these villages or cities stays there except for a token fee that goes to the state in order to help track such citations.  Even then, Stringtown got busted for telling motorists that if they just mailed in the fine it would not go on their driving record.  The only way to do that is to not report it to the state, in other words, they?re keeping all the money.

Think for a moment why we have such notorious speedtraps as Selma, TX; New Rome, OH; and Waldo, FL.  Why would they go to such lengths to not make any money? 

Nationwide, speed control is a $100+ billion a year industry.  That money comes out of motorist pockets and goes into government pockets.  Which particular pocket it goes into matters little to the motorist, only that it is gone with no particular benefit, personal or societal.