Mahkato
11-06-2008, 09:22 AM
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=3736
Local governments often derive a substantial portion of their revenue from citations for moving violations. The incentives for local governments are obvious: It is politically much easier to collect revenue through citations than to raise taxes or cut spending, and more reliable than state or federal government aid, which fluctuates considerably depending on budgets and legislation.
Conflict of interest
Moving violation tickets are always defended as a way to promote safe roadways. If this were truly the case, then automated speed cameras would be very rare, as they rarely reduce fatalities and accidents (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-406769/Speed-camera-safety-record-doubt-watchdog-questions-statistics.html). Instead, they are cash cows for the government.
Every new uncontested citation is a net financial gain for the government body that issued it. As a result, officers are given incentives or quotas to ensure that the government can extort as much money as possible from travelers, especially those who live far away and will not be able to make court dates.
Contested citations don't make money for the local government, but they do make money for the issuing officer. Some officers knowingly give unfair tickets in the hope that they will be contested (http://mises.org/story/3092), because they typically get paid overtime to sit in court all day. This ties up our court system and wastes taxpayer money.
A regressive tax
Traffic fines punish the poor considerably more than the rich. A $175 fine could crush someone at the poverty level, while someone much higher on the income scale may have just spent that much on lunch.
In Finland, they fine you based on your income (http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/wsj_finland.html), which is more "fair" in this regard, although socialistic. An unintended consequence of this law is that cops will only pull over nice looking cars because it will mean the biggest fine. The incentives for governments to bilk the motorists remain and even increase.
The solution
State legislatures should move toward the conversion all fines for all traffic violations from dollars to points, in a plan something like this:
All drivers begin with zero points.
Each type of ticket is assigned a point value, based on its severity and the risk of the action to other drivers and pedestrians.
Every day, any points against your driver's license are reduced by 1%.
If you have over, say, 250 points, your driver's license is suspended until you go below 250 points.
If you have over 500 points, your license is revoked and you have to retest.
Example
Dave gets one speeding ticket (+175 points), and a month later (-45 points), he gets parking ticket (+10 points), putting his balance at 140. The next day, he gets another speeding ticket (+175 points), leaving him at 315 points. As such, he cannot legally drive for 23 days, when his balance will fall below 250. But Dave decides to risk it and gets caught driving the next day with a suspended license, adding 250 points. His license is revoked, and his 561 point balance means that he can't drive again for 80 days, assuming he successfully retests.
Preventing abuse
There might have to be a small dollar fine levied in addition to the points fine, to prevent people from parking illegally all the time simply because they can afford the points. Or perhaps a $5/month charge whenever the point balance is above 25. Another method would be to require drivers to go back to driving school after grossing 750 points, lifetime cumulative. Drivers' points record (just the number, not citation information) could be made available as public information, which would allow insurance and car rental companies to base rates on your driver performance over the last several years.
Benefits
This plan would remove a large revenue block from local governments, requiring a shift to other sources of income, such as an unpopular increase in the more visible property and sales taxes, or forcing the government to cut its least necessary programs. In effect, government bloat would be reduced because revenue would be more difficult to obtain.
Traffic court caseload would be reduced as drivers would not have a financial incentive to fight tickets; they would merely need to drive well in order to lower their point balance.
Officers and governments would have no incentive to issue tickets for anything other than the currently stated purpose: safety. There would also be no reason for officers to let people off with a warning, or for generally safe drivers to try to talk their way out of a ticket.
In heavy traffic, officers could issue a small number of points against drivers without even pulling them over, which is impossible on congested roads. For example, if an officer observed a driver cutting in and out of a lane and riding the shoulder in order to get around stalled traffic, the driver could be penalized 15 points, and would receive notification of the penalty, with an explanation of the violation, in the mail.
Governments, no longer relying on moving violations for revenue, would likely reduce the number of officers on duty and/or move those officers to fighting more serious crimes, saving taxpayer money and improving enforcement in other areas.
http://www.votemotion.com/links/5866/
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Ticket_Racket
Local governments often derive a substantial portion of their revenue from citations for moving violations. The incentives for local governments are obvious: It is politically much easier to collect revenue through citations than to raise taxes or cut spending, and more reliable than state or federal government aid, which fluctuates considerably depending on budgets and legislation.
Conflict of interest
Moving violation tickets are always defended as a way to promote safe roadways. If this were truly the case, then automated speed cameras would be very rare, as they rarely reduce fatalities and accidents (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-406769/Speed-camera-safety-record-doubt-watchdog-questions-statistics.html). Instead, they are cash cows for the government.
Every new uncontested citation is a net financial gain for the government body that issued it. As a result, officers are given incentives or quotas to ensure that the government can extort as much money as possible from travelers, especially those who live far away and will not be able to make court dates.
Contested citations don't make money for the local government, but they do make money for the issuing officer. Some officers knowingly give unfair tickets in the hope that they will be contested (http://mises.org/story/3092), because they typically get paid overtime to sit in court all day. This ties up our court system and wastes taxpayer money.
A regressive tax
Traffic fines punish the poor considerably more than the rich. A $175 fine could crush someone at the poverty level, while someone much higher on the income scale may have just spent that much on lunch.
In Finland, they fine you based on your income (http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/wsj_finland.html), which is more "fair" in this regard, although socialistic. An unintended consequence of this law is that cops will only pull over nice looking cars because it will mean the biggest fine. The incentives for governments to bilk the motorists remain and even increase.
The solution
State legislatures should move toward the conversion all fines for all traffic violations from dollars to points, in a plan something like this:
All drivers begin with zero points.
Each type of ticket is assigned a point value, based on its severity and the risk of the action to other drivers and pedestrians.
Every day, any points against your driver's license are reduced by 1%.
If you have over, say, 250 points, your driver's license is suspended until you go below 250 points.
If you have over 500 points, your license is revoked and you have to retest.
Example
Dave gets one speeding ticket (+175 points), and a month later (-45 points), he gets parking ticket (+10 points), putting his balance at 140. The next day, he gets another speeding ticket (+175 points), leaving him at 315 points. As such, he cannot legally drive for 23 days, when his balance will fall below 250. But Dave decides to risk it and gets caught driving the next day with a suspended license, adding 250 points. His license is revoked, and his 561 point balance means that he can't drive again for 80 days, assuming he successfully retests.
Preventing abuse
There might have to be a small dollar fine levied in addition to the points fine, to prevent people from parking illegally all the time simply because they can afford the points. Or perhaps a $5/month charge whenever the point balance is above 25. Another method would be to require drivers to go back to driving school after grossing 750 points, lifetime cumulative. Drivers' points record (just the number, not citation information) could be made available as public information, which would allow insurance and car rental companies to base rates on your driver performance over the last several years.
Benefits
This plan would remove a large revenue block from local governments, requiring a shift to other sources of income, such as an unpopular increase in the more visible property and sales taxes, or forcing the government to cut its least necessary programs. In effect, government bloat would be reduced because revenue would be more difficult to obtain.
Traffic court caseload would be reduced as drivers would not have a financial incentive to fight tickets; they would merely need to drive well in order to lower their point balance.
Officers and governments would have no incentive to issue tickets for anything other than the currently stated purpose: safety. There would also be no reason for officers to let people off with a warning, or for generally safe drivers to try to talk their way out of a ticket.
In heavy traffic, officers could issue a small number of points against drivers without even pulling them over, which is impossible on congested roads. For example, if an officer observed a driver cutting in and out of a lane and riding the shoulder in order to get around stalled traffic, the driver could be penalized 15 points, and would receive notification of the penalty, with an explanation of the violation, in the mail.
Governments, no longer relying on moving violations for revenue, would likely reduce the number of officers on duty and/or move those officers to fighting more serious crimes, saving taxpayer money and improving enforcement in other areas.
http://www.votemotion.com/links/5866/
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Ticket_Racket