Seatbelt Enforcement

[Thomas Rogers]

Les said:

Tom, no one said it did.

Are you sure that no one stated or implied that somehow there is some connection between the presence or absence of a LEO and the intent of the tickets to generate revenue vs increase safety?



That's all I was trying to say, that such assertions don't make sense to me.



I got that assertion from the fact that you stated:

The judge indicated that since the cities are not requiring law enforcement to visually see the infraction, they are revenue bearing and are illegal.

That was essentially what I had issue with.



As stated, the judge ruled that the absence of an LOE observing the infraction means they are revenuing bearing AND (therefore) illegal.



I took issue with that.



I'm not trying to word trap you.



If a moving violation lawfully requires a LOE to visually observe (based on current laws) and these infractions WERE moving violations ticked by camera are deemed moving violations THEN the judge ruled well. That still doesn't change the fact that I think the laws should be changed to allow technology, not just LOE to observe.



If, however, the judge ruled as he did and these were "code violations" that don't require LOE observation then I don't understand the basis for the judges ruling. Maybe he should be ruling that they are illegal because they SHOULD be moving violations, and therefore the infractions are not so much illegal, but void due to misclassification.



TJR

 

[Les]

If a moving violation lawfully requires a LOE to visually observe (based on current laws) and these infractions WERE moving violations ticked by camera are deemed moving violations THEN the judge ruled well. That still doesn't change the fact that I think the laws should be changed to allow technology, not just LOE to observe.

I would presume these changes will occur in the future, but at this time the cities were circumventing this just for the revenue or due to ignorance. As I understand it, a company that makes these devices comes to town, makes a pitch, and gets awarded a contract, and all the city has to do is cash the checks, no work required. The company completely handles the transactions.

Are you sure that no one stated or implied that somehow there is some connection between the presence or absence of a LEO and the intent of the tickets to generate revenue vs increase safety?

Never considered or commented about the safety factor regarding LEO vs. cameras. I did comment that the locals were using the "safety factor" for the purpose of installing the cameras, when in fact the judge ruled there was no proof of this (at this time) and also ruled they were simply using them to generate revenue. Whether the cameras add a safety factor or not, I have no idea, however, my feeling is there will be a lot more rear-end accidents at these intersections when people think they may get a ticket.



No question, eventually red-light cameras and speed limits will be observed and ticketed with technology, but currently the laws in place don't allow it, or are not interpreted that way.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les,



Good discussion and thanks for clarifying.



Still, I think the judge is "all wet" if his ruling is based in there being "no proof" that the cameras contribute to safety. That seems to me to be an arbitrary litmus test to me, opening the way for citizens to claim that a particular stop sign and its use as a traffic control device is illegal unless its placement and enforcement can be proven to increase safety. See what I mean? See the slippery slope?



Likewise, from what you have said, I don't see how the judge has proven as fact that the community's motive for the devices is revenue generation. To me, that is his opinion...not necessarily a fact that can be easily proven. Likewise, I suspect that he is reinforcing that opinion based on the communities inability to show that the devices increase safety. He is taking 1 + 1 and getting 3.



The absence of data is rarely the proof of anything. The judge doesn't seem to understand that very simple axiom.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TrainTrac,

worked on a National Parkway for a number of years. They tracked speed enforcement verses accidents and death. When tickets were up accidents were down and when tickets were down accidents were up.

The problem with that logic is like all other law enforcement crackdowns....They temporarily reduce the incidents in that small area, but it does not really change people's driving habits. Yes, people will slow down in areas where they know there are speed traps, and then hit the gas when they clear the area. That is not promoting safe driving, that is just people avoiding getting caught speeding in a heavily enforced area. The cops always view that as success because they reduce incidents in their area, but the problem just moved a few miles further down the road.



In the past, Texas has had some notorious speed traps that were running rampant. These we in small towns that had major state highways running through their juristiction. The would set up speed traps nearly 24 hours per day and in some instances it was the major source of revenue for that town.



One very famous speed trap exited here in Texas, on Hwy 190 just outside of Ft. Hood TX, in a little tiny town called Nolanville. The total residence of this town was only about 1000 people but they had 32 police officers and 16-18 police cars. The police operated a speed trap on hwy 190 nearly 24 hours a day and the state found that nearly 90% of the town's revenue came from traffic fines.



Texas passed a law that cities/towns could not keep the fines they received for violations on State highways. The towns were only allowed to keep a small administrative fee but the remaining fines had to be forwarded to the state, because it was the State police's job to patrol state highways, not local police.



In the end, Nolanville nearly went broke, fired most of their police force and now only have 2 or 3 police offices. The had to sell all their police cars and now only have 1 or 2 cars. An interesting side note is that they mayor, city council and most of the politicals that were operating the speed trap have been run out of office. A similar situation existed in Rome, Ohio that was running a massive speed trap that made news all over country and had coorupt politicians as major and city council members.



The majority of the traffic ticket written are to honest citizens who either did not notice a sign, and are not familiar with the area. Many times the police use traffic stops for insignificant violations to see if the person has any outstanding wants or warrants. So they stop the guy for a burned out taillight and start asking questions like where he is going, where is coming from, where he works, etc. That IMHO is an interrogation and should not be part of a simple traffic violation.



There have been numerous cases where the police have warrants for people who are living at there home address and the police don't even bother to knock on their door. They would rather use traffic stops as a method of locating criminals. The sole reason is that knocking on doors and doing real detective work does not bring in any revenue, traffic stops do, and you might get lucky and stumble across a wanted felon. Many felons will run from a traffic stop and then we end up with a high speed chase through the city...How does that promote safety?



The punishment for a traffic violation should somehow relate to safer driving. Paying a fine does will not prompt wealthy people to drive safer. Wealthier people will usually have the latest technology radar/Laser detectors to avoid getting speeding tickets, and the fines are insignificant to them. The only guy who really suffers is the guy who is trying to make ends meet and is living from paycheck to paycheck.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

OK

 

[TomT]

Although the speed traps in Texas have been reduced they are still there:

Texas Cities Profit Despite Speed Trap Law

Texas law against speed traps has failed to prevent small towns from funding operations from speeding tickets.



The 1975 Texas statute meant to ban small jurisdictions from funding city operations from speeding tickets has failed to curb the practice. Estelline, a tiny town of 194 in the Panhandle, is almost entirely funded by citations issued to outsiders passing through on US 287. Where the speed limit suddenly drops from 70 MPH to 50, the town's lone police officer is ready to pounce.



Texas law mandates that a small city or town may only generate speeding ticket revenue equal to 30 percent of the previous year's total budget. After that, the city keeps just $1 from every $170-280 ticket it can issue. It must then send the rest to the state. In 1999, a state audit caught the town illegally withholding $15,025 in fine revenue.



"We're able to increase our revenue a bit every year," Estelline Mayor Rick Manley told the Houston Chronicle.



Estelline will generate $320,000 in traffic tickets and pocket $110,000 in 2007.