Traffic Tickets - Maybe it is All About Revenue

[Mike]

This Chicago Tribune Article discusses a study at George Mason University that found:

 

-Drivers from out of state are more likely to be ticketed than local drivers. In fact, the further you live away from a jurisdiction--and, consequently, the less likely you are to fight a ticket--the more likely you are to be ticketed.

 

-The number of tickets written increases dramatically in jurisdictions where taxpayers have recently rejected referendums to increase taxes: "'The police are almost exclusively writing higher numbers of tickets to out-of-town drivers in the year a referendum proposal fails. It's an interesting way to export the tax to non-voters,' said Michael Makowsky, a PhD candidate in economics at George Mason University who conducted the study with economics professor Thomas Stratmann."

 

I often hear that traffic tickets are all about revenue, something that I don't always buy, but this study offers some interesting evidence to support that notion.

[David]

-Drivers from out of state are more likely to be ticketed than local drivers. In fact, the further you live away from a jurisdiction--and, consequently, the less likely you are to fight a ticket--the more likely you are to be ticketed.

 

This could be explained in part by out of towners not knowing where the speed traps are likely to be.

[Lawman]

One who believes it's not about the money is naive.

[Mike]

-Drivers from out of state are more likely to be ticketed than local drivers. In fact, the further you live away from a jurisdiction--and, consequently, the less likely you are to fight a ticket--the more likely you are to be ticketed.

 

This could be explained in part by out of towners not knowing where the speed traps are likely to be.

 

That's possible, but the article indicates that the study looked at what happens once you're pulled over. Once stopped, those who are from out of state get ticketed at a much higher rate than locals. There could be a lot of factors that influence that (like a cop's reluctance to ticket a neighbor), but it sounds like the researchers concluded that it was due to the fact that the ticket was less likely to be contested.

[wellcraft]

speed limits have there place in highly congested or residential areas. speeding tickets for the most part are nothing but revenue generating schemes and have nothing to do with safety. the people that believe traffic tickets are not to generate revenue are the same people that drive 10-15 mph below the speed limit while driving in the left lane.

[smiller]

Whether or not one agrees that 'it's all about the revenue' it's hard to argue against the obvious conflict of interest. One way to eliminate that (or at least greatly reduce its influence) would be to place all traffic fine revenue into a general state fund with amounts rebated back to municipalities and counties based on statewide average revenues vs. local efforts. Yes, there would be some additional administration required but it would also help unlink the dollar influence from local enforcement efforts (and again, while you can disagree about the net result it's hard to deny that the influence is there.) The fact that this hasn't been done (or even seriously proposed, as far as I know) doesn't do much to decrease one's suspicions.

[Whip]

I wonder if it has anything to do with having sheriffs and police chiefs being elected in small communities where a few votes can make a difference. Out of towners can't vote.

 

Would you vote for the guy that gave you a ticket or who's policy it is to give out a lot of tickets. I know a place where the police are not allowed to give tickets for just this reason.

 

Whip

[ericfoerster]

Whip you are very correct with your assessment of the ticket situation. I am appointed by the City Manager and get only a little pressure from the public about tickets. The Sheriff here is elected (as most are) and we out write them by a huge margin.

It could be said that we write more tickets because we have more traffic than he does out in the rural areas. Truth be known, I doubt he wants his guys stirring up trouble because he is elected.

 

It is funny that there are all these studies about these speed traps and revenue collecting scams. I’ve only been doing this job for 15 years in 5 different agencies and I still don’t know what they are talking about. I guess I’ve worked for pretty ethical agencies the entire time. While it is not as sensational as a “story”, it is the first hand knowledge that I speak from.

Now I am off to win that toaster oven my wife really needs

[leikam]

It is funny that there are all these studies...

 

Isn't it? Cops consistently say that they are just doing their jobs and I do believe that most are simply calling it like they see it. And yet, there apparently are these consistent trends at the population level. Things show up when you take a look at the population as a whole that don't when you narrow your focus to smaller groups or the individuals themselves.

[Lawman]

I wonder if it has anything to do with having sheriffs and police chiefs being elected in small communities where a few votes can make a difference. Out of towners can't vote.

 

Would you vote for the guy that gave you a ticket or who's policy it is to give out a lot of tickets. I know a place where the police are not allowed to give tickets for just this reason.

 

Whip

 

Whip,

We do know of such a place don't we...

[decorbin]

I used to live in the St Louis area, and I believe there is a state law that limits the amount of each city's budget that can be funded by traffic fines. St Louis county has lots of small municipalities that do everything they can to maximize that revenue and ensure they collect as much as they can. The cops in one small town there were caught a few years back using a remote red light trigger on a signal that had no business being there in the first place to change the signal suddenly and write tickets for running it. One kids dad took the time to go document this with a video camera...caught them in action...and the state ordered them to quit.

 

It is about the revenue. The local prosecutors for these small towns will readily plead a ticket to a non-moving viloation so you won't have points on your license. If it were not about the revenue, why else would they do that?

 

Don't get me wrong...I think the laws shoud be fairly enforced, particularly those that deal with aggressive driving, but the system is not about public safety IMHO.

[GoGo Gadget]

Any study that is initiated out of spite where the researcher already has his intended conclusion developed is at heart, a very flawed study.

 

The study, "Political Economy at Any Speed: What Determines Traffic Citations?" is based on traffic-stop data from about 350 municipalities in Massachusetts. But the researchers say the findings are universal and prove what many people already believe.

 

 

Makowsky got the idea for the research after his Virginia-registered car was stopped for speeding in Massachusetts

 

 

I wonder if he initially did the study in Fairfax, since that is where GMU is located, but was disappointed to learn that less than 1/2 a penny of every dollar in revenue is from fines. Not just traffic fines, but all fines.

[velomoto]

It is about the revenue. The local prosecutors for these small towns will readily plead a ticket to a non-moving viloation so you won't have points on your license. If it were not about the revenue, why else would they do that?

For those of us with insurance (each year a smaller and smaller majority I'm told) I would MUCH rather pay a fine than have the insurance company learn of any moving violation. Perhaps one's insurance won't go up much for a violation or two, but throw an accident on top of a couple poorly timed tickets and see what your rates do! That is if you still have insurance!

[velomoto]

... That's possible, but the article indicates that the study looked at what happens once you're pulled over. Once stopped, those who are from out of state get ticketed at a much higher rate than locals. There could be a lot of factors that influence that (like a cop's reluctance to ticket a neighbor), but it sounds like the researchers concluded that it was due to the fact that the ticket was less likely to be contested.

Wyoming, our neighbor to the north, is infamous for the LEO's picking Colorado plates out of a line of cars speeding across I-80. If it truly were a matter of revenue one would expect the LEO to ticket the entire line of cars... Or this could just be another example of urban legend and have no basis in fact.

 

Ticketing people from out of state certainly does make it more likely that the ticket will not go to trial or appeal. Or another simple answer is that people do have biases or preferences.

[Rotor]

Come on guys. I can't believe police are selecting/targeting out-of-towners. First, it's too hard to do. Unless you're from a state that requires a front license plate, stationary radar would not work very well. Do they let every speeder go until one passes with an out of state tag? Moving radar wouldn't work for the same reasons unless they were running it in the same direction mode and could see the plate from behind. Now, are out of towners who ARE stopped more likely to get a ticket? Maybe?

[MotorinLA]

Having driven through northern Nevada many a time from California, I have been told by several people that the LEO's in the local towns commonly target out of state vehicles for moving violations. I haven't had any personal experience with this phenomenon, PERHAPS BECAUSE I OBEY THE LAWS WHEN I TRAVEL THROUGH THESE AREAS.

 

I know, this is a completely unreasonable concept...

 

It completely defies the idea that if everybody else is breaking the law and getting away with it, I'm entitled to do it too!

[Agent_Orange]

[MattS]

I often hear that traffic tickets are all about revenue, something that I don't always buy.

All the studies in the world, and all the chortle you'll read here, don't support that. The control group of people who whine that speeding (and all other) tickets are about revenue ... are the absolute worst of the worst of the offenders of the traffic laws.

 

When is the last time you sat behind a couple of little old ladies who were whining about tickets being all about revenue and none about safety?

 

And how else but by levying fines (I consider them to be a use tax) would governments facilitate the maintenance of safety?

 

The revenue-not-safety argument could be bought if the officers themselves were collecting a piece -- like the good old days before SCMODS. Also, one of the things I've noticed is that if you don't speed, you don't get tickets for speeding. How 'bout that for a study?

[upflying]

From my own experience, I was less likely to write tourists and out of staters. My reasoning is the further away a violator lives from traffic court, the more likely they would ignore the stub. You might as well be writing the ticket on toilet paper if the violator was from another country.

[SageRider]

Having driven through northern Nevada many a time from California, I have been told by several people that the LEO's in the local towns commonly target out of state vehicles for moving violations

I have never seen any evidence of selective enforcement in Northern Nevada.

In the Cal/Nev border towns (Minden / Gardnerville / Carson City / Reno) traffice enforcement is fairly lax, although in the Carson City area there are at least two unmarked vehicles (and not your typical Crown Vics)which specifically target agressive driving. This may impact our more frenetic brethren to the west more than the locals, but it is not the intention.

Outside of the border towns, the small towns have virtually no tolerance for anyone. Tonopah, Fallon, Yerington, Hawthorne, Eureka, Austin, Ely.... Chances are very good that you will not pass through these towns without being targeted by radar at least once. Exceed the speed limit at your own risk! (it doesn't make a d@mn bit of difference where the plate on your vehicle says you're from...)

[Ramse]

You mean all my supervisors that told me during my 26 year career in law enforcement that I needed to stop more cars were lying about safety? It is all about.....money?

I am being sarcastic of course. Truly it is at least partially about money. You see, I was told to enforce traffic laws...without my efforts in traffic enforcement...I would not last long in my chosen career and hence...no money for me! Additionally, the general public (that being all of us) complain all the time to the head of local government, the police chief, the Mayor's office about all the bad "speeders" on their street. All of this filters down to the cop on the beat (that being me - - or rather it was me up to three years ago). I believe this is universal and ask any other LEO on this forum and they will likely have experienced the same thing.

In my state, they enacted a law that says police agencies cannot mandate a ticket quota. However, motor vehicle "contacts" or stops (regardless of outcome to the "violator") remains a potential measure of overall performance.

For me, and I am sure for Lawman too and all the other current and retired LEO's, traffic enforcement is part of the job. You do as you are directed to do. You hope (maybe just a little bit) that stopping some cars will actually prevent an accident. I'd much rather stop 100 cars and issue 100 tickets then have to make even one notification to YOUR next of kin.

At least in Connecticut, unless things have changed recently, all ticket money goes to the state's general fund and therefore, nothing for local government. There is no incentive for local officials to mandate traffic enforcement for a political agenda.

[motorman587]

Boy o boy, first it's "You are writing me cause I 'am black", now it's "You are writting me cause I am out of towner". Jeeeze. I am calling in sick.

[DiggerJim]

...in the Carson City area there are at least two unmarked vehicles (and not your typical Crown Vics)

CT uses everything from the Crown Vics to Mustangs, Camaros, and now SUVs...but my favorite is NYC which has an unmarked car that's disguised as a taxi-cab!

[lawnchairboy]

ya' think??????????????

[scottie_boy]

The control group of people who whine that speeding (and all other) tickets are about revenue ... are the absolute worst of the worst of the offenders of the traffic laws.

 

When is the last time you sat behind a couple of little old ladies who were whining about tickets being all about revenue and none about safety?

 

And how else but by levying fines (I consider them to be a use tax) would governments facilitate the maintenance of safety?

 

IF it is truly about safety then I say those little old ladies who maybe obeying the speed limit with their poor vision and slowed reflexes are more of a danger than the average person who is going a couple over the limit.

[outpost22]

Come on guys. I can't believe police are selecting/targeting out-of-towners.

 

Hmm. 25 years ago I was ticketed in another state for 35 mph in a 35 mph zone. How you ask? I had passed through a school zone (20 mph when children are "present") with a cop stationed there. Once past the school zone, I accelerated to 35 mph (the posted speed)with no children visible, except 3 blocks BEHIND me. He pulls me over and writes a $135.00 ticket with a smirk on his face. Yeah, the out of state plate had no bearing...

[Yeeha! Stephen]

You mean all my supervisors that told me during my 26 year career in law enforcement that I needed to stop more cars were lying about safety?... There is no incentive for local officials to mandate traffic enforcement for a political agenda.

 

Ah, maybe not lying, but being more emphatic about safety when his town budgeted $800k income from traffic fines & his quarterly report shows less than $200k.

There's a letter, memo, e-mail somewhere in there asking why he's behind on his quarterly #'s.

 

With businesses closing & with our local economy slacking up, we somehow came up with more motor officers. They write 100% of their traffic stops. No discimination here. Even with a tolerance on the mph over, there seems to be no end to the people willing to donate to our fine City.

 

Funny, the town next door to us, with the big fine Mall (and huge tax income)... they don't have a dozen motors traveling in packs of 3 to 4. Hmmmmmm...

 

And, by the way... We just got our first "Safety" Red Light Camera.

[MattS]

If it is truly about safety then I say those little old ladies who maybe obeying the speed limit with their poor vision and slowed reflexes are more of a danger than the average person who is going a couple over the limit.

Quite the thing to aspire to be ... the average person going a couple over. It's what every kid in America wants to be when he grows up.

 

I say that if you're going to go a couple over, then you're risking summons in a way that you're not if you're going a couple under. Whether that person is wearing a pair of Depends, or is someone of more recent vintage who is choosing to ride within or below his limits, wouldn't really make a difference in this instance.

[steve.foote]

And, by the way... We just got our first "Safety" Red Light Camera.

 

Oh my God! You had to go and say that.

 

[MotorinLA]

Hmmm…

 

From the listed article in the Chicago Tribune:

 

“Drivers whose vehicles have out-of-state license plates have about a 50 percent chance of receiving a ticket when pulled over, compared with 30 percent for local drivers, according to the study.”

 

I’d bet my donut the six residents of my city I cited yesterday would argue this finding.

 

“And if drivers have an 18-year-old daughter, they should stick her behind the steering wheel during a road trip this summer. Police issue far fewer citations to young women.”

 

I’d beg to differ. The only chance you’ll get to see that pretty face a second time is if you make them go to court… All joking aside, take it from the guy who cited the nun in the Meals on Wheels van, it doesn’t matter what age or gender you are, you’re going to pay the piper!

 

“The study, "Political Economy at Any Speed: What Determines Traffic Citations?" is based on traffic-stop data from about 350 municipalities in Massachusetts. But the researchers say the findings are universal and prove what many people already believe.”

 

Apparently these “researchers” failed their research classes. Generalizing results outside of the test group without any independent studies supporting such a finding is a big no-no - “Research methodology 101”.

[ghaverkamp]

Apparently these “researchers” failed their research classes. Generalizing results outside of the test group without any independent studies supporting such a finding is a big no-no - “Research methodology 101”.

 

Actually, I believe some call it sampling.

[MotorinLA]

Actually, I believe some call it sampling.

 

It's not "sampling", if all your samples come from the same place. Doing all your research in Massachusetts does not give you a representative sample of a national trend.

 

I haven't been to Boston, but I don't think anyone would think it is reasonable to compare Boston to Los Angeles with respect to a great number of things. It really is apples and oranges.

[p_interceptor]

The one thing I have learned in 39 years as a Florida State Trooper --- "everyone wants the traffic laws strictly enforced for everyone but themselves."

[scottie_boy]

If it is truly about safety then I say those little old ladies who maybe obeying the speed limit with their poor vision and slowed reflexes are more of a danger than the average person who is going a couple over the limit.

Quite the thing to aspire to be ... the average person going a couple over. It's what every kid in America wants to be when he grows up.

 

I say that if you're going to go a couple over, then you're risking summons in a way that you're not if you're going a couple under. Whether that person is wearing a pair of Depends, or is someone of more recent vintage who is choosing to ride within or below his limits, wouldn't really make a difference in this instance.

 

I am not advocating speeding. My point was that if the true goal is safer roads then sitting beside the road with a laser gun isn't the way to do it. The police should be looking for people driving erratically whether it is because they are 90 years old or are simply just an idiot.

 

As a motorcyclist, I've never felt endangered because the person next to me was going a few over the speed limit but I have been run off the road due to careless drivers.

[kurt1305]

Obviously it's about safety. The rub comes from the conflict of interest in the use of the money collected. Mandate that all fines go towards state highway maintenance and construction and see if there is still an interest in safety.

[smiller]

The one thing I have learned in 39 years as a Florida State Trooper --- "everyone wants the traffic laws strictly enforced for everyone but themselves."

Not necessarily. I couldn't care less if someone drives a little above the limit as long as they're driving well.

[velomoto]

My point was that if the true goal is safer roads then sitting beside the road with a laser gun isn't the way to do it.

Bingo! I think this is the main point (issue?) so many people have with traffic tickets - the perception that LEO's only sit on the side of the road with their laser/radar guns. If you visit California or Colorado, keep an eye in your rear view mirror 'cuz they may be following you. When I lived in CA one never saw speed traps on the freeways. Colorado seems to be employing more motorcycles and unmarked cars to cruise in traffic.

[SageRider]

When I lived in CA one never saw speed traps on the freeways.

Fairly common in Southern California for a CHP unit to hide on an On-Ramp waiting for Prey.

Very common in the central valley using air support and multiple ground units to pull 5, 10 , or more vehicles over at once.

[scottie_boy]

My point was that if the true goal is safer roads then sitting beside the road with a laser gun isn't the way to do it.

Bingo! I think this is the main point (issue?) so many people have with traffic tickets - the perception that LEO's only sit on the side of the road with their laser/radar guns. If you visit California or Colorado, keep an eye in your rear view mirror 'cuz they may be following you. When I lived in CA one never saw speed traps on the freeways. Colorado seems to be employing more motorcycles and unmarked cars to cruise in traffic.

 

 

You've obviously never driven through Cobb County, Georgia.

[ghaverkamp]

It's not "sampling", if all your samples come from the same place. Doing all your research in Massachusetts does not give you a representative sample of a national trend.

 

From the blurb quoted from the article, I don't believe it was referred to as a trend.

 

Doing an econometrical analysis, they would no doubt have needed consistent data to work from. Choosing data from a single state likely gave them some commonality. In other words, a usable control group. (In fact, if you read the paper, you'll see precisely why Massachusetts was chosen.)

 

From the title, it should have been clear that the paper was done by political economists, and if you actually read the paper, you'll see that they're doing what political economists do: they're testing theories and drawing conclusions about the economic effects of various laws. Their conclusions that they say are uniform are that where municipalities may increase revenue through ticket issuance, officers are more inclined to write tickets to those with greater opportunity costs to challenge than those with smaller opportunity costs.

 

They're sampling because they're choosing from an easily controlled set of data operating from a limited period of time that is generated under uniform state revenue laws. They're using that data to test theories of the laws impact. From there, it's perfectly reasonable to make some generalizations about other jurisdictions that have the same legal mechanisms in place. That's what political economists do.

[MotorinLA]

Hey, Professor Mason!

 

I cited the guy on the Buell Lightning and let the guy on the R1100GS go.

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

[motorman587]

[DiggerJim]

Obviously it's about safety. The rub comes from the conflict of interest in the use of the money collected. Mandate that all fines go towards state highway maintenance and construction and see if there is still an interest in safety.

There still will be. The ticket money going to the roads means less of a need for general fund money going to the roads. Thus more general fund money for other stuff.

 

When CT started their first lottery they got it passed because all the proceeds went to "education". That won over the folks who were otherwise morally opposed to gambling. The next year, the general fund contribution to the education budget dropped by the amount taken in by the lottery. A few years later when the amount taken in by the lottery exceeded the amount that had previously been supporting the education budgets, all pretenses were removed and the lottery money was no longer earmarked for education but went straight to the general fund. The lottery money didn't add to the pot, it displaced other money which went somewhere else.

 

As long as there is money coming in, it doesn't matter where it's targeted, it's still going to be an incentive; if for no other reason than it frees up financial capacity somewhere else. Economics ain't magic.

 

Jim

[harleyjohn45]

One who believes it's not about the money is naive.

 

+1

john

[harleyjohn45]

The one thing I have learned in 39 years as a Florida State Trooper --- "everyone wants the traffic laws strictly enforced for everyone but themselves."

 

+1 and that especially goes for the leo's. i know several caught for speeding and the first thing they did was show their badge. so i would say no one likes a ticket.

[NoLongeraK1200RSRider]

At the risk of starting up more debate I do have to relate this story. I was in Ca. for a short time.. driving my van that had Tn. plates on it. Got caught in one of those "short yellow light" scenarios and was ticketed for running the light. Now what makes this one of those "out of state plate" stories is this.. 2 more cars and a truck went thru this light AFTER I did! All were locals. The officer had to make a U-turn in order to effect the stop so it wasn't like he didn't see them. YMMV

[xoomerite]

Writing speeding tickets is easy to do. Wrecks are caused by other things. It is more difficult and time-consuming to write the tickets for improper lane change, following too closely, driving inattentively, and the other things that cause wrecks. Granted the greater the speed in a wreck, the worse the outcome. Speed does not cause wrecks.

 

Failure to yield, cutting others off in traffic, following too closely, and a myriad of other infractions cause wrecks.

 

Speeding tickets are simple and easy to write, easy to convict, and produce lots of revenue. I doubt that they contribute much to making the roads safer.

 

The fines for speeding keep being increased, while the evidence shows that the severity of the punishment has little value as a deterrent. Empirically, the certainty of the punishment deters.

 

Besides, if speed were such a bugbear, why do the majority of wrecks and deaths occur on surface streets and highways rather than on the freeways?

 

Writing speeding tickets is a simple, yet woefully ineffective tool of safety.

[DiggerJim]

Besides, if speed were such a bugbear, why do the majority of wrecks and deaths occur on surface streets and highways rather than on the freeways?

If it were, we'd still be driving at 3mph with someone walking in front of us waving a lantern and a flag to warn others of our approach. It's a cost of driving and with it there's an associated acceptable cost of death & injury (approx 120 people killed everyday nationally). We accept that level of death-risk because driving at 3mph is not acceptable.

 

By and large I don't think anyone really has an issue with ticketing excessive speed - it's the demonization of speed and the hypocrisy wrapped around the "it's really all about safety and not at all about revenue" argument that is patently untrue and insults the intelligence of anyone who gives this topic more than a cursory analysis.

 

Jim

[velomoto]

Speed does not cause wrecks.

C'mon out on our roads in the winter and tell me this when you see the carnage on our highways when they unexpectedly turn to ice. I think they call this "driving too fast for conditions".

 

... why do the majority of wrecks and deaths occur on surface streets and highways rather than on the freeways?

Not really that difficult to comprehend out here where "highways" have speed limits of 50 to 65 mph and traffic typically runs 10 to 20 mph over these limits. Besides, secondary highways offer much more challenging (fun?) driving conditions which eliminate much margin for error. If "slow" is so dangerous, why are the death rates in parking lots so slow?

 

Writing speeding tickets is a simple, yet woefully ineffective tool of safety.

If this is the case, then one certainly could argue that the penalty is not a sufficiently deterrent and needs to be raised. I would argue that the odds of getting caught are so low that most people (myself included) simply don't worry about getting pulled over. It's the old "it'll never happen to me" syndrome.

[bakerzdosen]

Speed does not cause wrecks.

C'mon out on our roads in the winter and tell me this when you see the carnage on our highways when they unexpectedly turn to ice. I think they call this "driving too fast for conditions".

I think we can all stipulate that speeding on ice causes wrecks, but then again, so does driving slowly on ice. The damage is just more severe at higher speeds.

 

No one will dispute that wrecks at high speed cause more damage than wrecks at low speed. That's basic physics.

 

The argument as I understand it is whether we as human beings - with the automobiles currently available to us - are capable of driving at speeds higher than the posted speed limits (on appropriate roads) without crashing more frequently than while driving currently posted speed limits (in the USA - the answer in Germany is yes).