How much does a 'ticket' cost?

[kleinma]

have no fear...

[dclamp]

have no fear...

I approve of this message.

[honeybee]

I approve of this message.

I happened to see that movie a few days back. And the cop is kinda sweet! But he rides a Segway, so no seatbelts!

.

[akhileshbc]

If I were to lose my license for a month if I jumped a signal for the first time, I would try hard as hell to make sure I never jumped any. And if I avoided that first offence, there's no way in hell I would commit it a second time, right?

.

Yeah

[moonman239]

have no fear...

Yeah... if you don't mind getting pulled over just for driving an electric WHEELCHAIR down a mall hallway

[honeybee]

Yeah... if you don't mind getting pulled over just for driving an electric WHEELCHAIR down a mall hallway

I remember reading in the news a few months back about a wheelchair getting stuck to the front of a truck (an 18 wheeler) and the truck driver unknowingly driving away. Imagine if the truck was doing 60mph on a freeway where 60mph is well within the speed limits, will the man in the wheelchair be booked for going above the speed limit? Wheelchairs can't be riding at 60mph on freeways!

.

[Doogle]

And if I avoided that first offence, there's no way in hell I would commit it a second time, right?.

It's all about Risk Assessment. I read somewhere some time ago that the parts of the brain that can assess risks are not fully developed in humans until the age of about 24. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that those of a 'younger age' are more prone to go everywhere at a million miles per hour and tend to be repeat offenders. Certainly the Insurance Premiums for this age group reflect the risks. Us oldies have those areas of our brain 'over developed', which is why we go everywhere at 20 miles per hour.

I have a great deal of sympathy for baja_yu; it seems he assessed the physical risks (probably sub-conciously) of overtaking a slower vehicle in the area he was driving in and came to the conclusion it was 'safe' to do so. Unfortunately he didn't include the risk of a Traffic Cop being around.

Of course, in Law there's no defence like; "Look here, sonny, I've been driving since before you were born, it was quite safe for me to overtake. Why don't you get back in your vehicle and catch some proper criminals?"

[baja_yu]

The point is that I wasn't driving 45 mph at all time. I was just doing so while overtaking. If you ask me, completing an overtake in as little time as possible is the safest thing to do. If someone is driving 25mph I'm sure as hell wont take 2 minutes driving 29 to overtake him. I put on the gas, get it done and return to driving at normal speed. Here, by law, you are required to finish overtaking in as little time as possible and you have to be driving at least 10mph faster than the person you are overtaking.

[honeybee]

... Here, by law, you are required to finish overtaking in as little time as possible and you have to be driving at least 10mph faster than the person you are overtaking.

while still being reasonably within the speed limit, I assume. That would mean if you have to exceed the speed limit in this situation, you shouldn't be overtaking.

Over here, on 'expressways', I have been frustrated so much by the truckers in each lane playing a game of 'who drives the slowest', that I can sympathize with you, empathize with you. I am even grateful sometimes the cops here don't go for speed radars.

.

[baja_yu]

By law here you have to be going at least 10mph faster than the person you are overtaking. So if someone is going 21 in a 30mph zone you are, by law, not allowed to overtake them. To me, it's plainly stupid to give someone a ticket for exceeding the limit in a situation like that. If you exceed the limit just for a few seconds while you you are overtaking, I don't see much harm in that.
Writing a ticket, by my standards, is too harsh. A warning would suffice. You can argue that I was 50% over the limit, but it's not that the limit was 80 and I was going 120. It was 15mph over. It just sounds worse when you say 50%. If the limit was 12, 18 would be 50%. The problem here is that the country is neck deep in **** and they do everything to fill the budget. Since the beginning of the year by new law you are required to have the lights on at all time. I was doing that even before it was required. A couple of months back I forgot and got a ticket after a few miles. No warning, $50 ticket. They also came up with a law that you are now required to have a different kind of first aid kit. So the old ones for some reason were not good enough, and you can imagine how much business they made for a few companies selling them (probably owned by some politicians) that the entire country has to buy one, or if you don't have it the ticket is $80. That's where I live.

[Shaggy Hiker]

no wayy. farthest thing from that. I work for the police which means Police doughnuts.

Yeah, we knew what you meant!

[Shaggy Hiker]

i would go for a really harsh punishment first, then an equal, or harsher punishment for each additional time. If people are afraid of the punishment, then they wont do it, and there wont be a next time. I think, if any, the DUI consequences should be as extreme as possible. Especially now that i have been driving a lot later at night, I would rather not have to worry about going into an intersection and having a drunk drive t-bone me.

Of course. I have always noticed that people who are pig-faced drunk are always very good about considering the consequences of their actions. They are all aware that most drunk drivers do so 8-10 times before they get caught, so they are keeping count (they're all good at that, too).

I totally agree with the sentiment. Nothing scares me more. I just don't think the facts are on your side. Education may drive down drunk driving, but penalties will not unless they get MUCH MUCH stiffer than they currently are. Two years of driving interlocks plus a hefty fine (including the price of the interlock) might get the job done....but it might not, too.

[honeybee]

Two years of driving interlocks plus a hefty fine (including the price of the interlock) might get the job done....but it might not, too.

How about two years of NO driving? If people have been irresponsible to themselves and other road users by drinking and driving, why not just keep them off the roads??

Over here, at least, the government prints a line behind the driving licence: Driving is a privilege, not a right.

.

[brad jones]

I'm sorry DClamp - but I wear a cell phone on my belt, have things in my pocket I need to get to when going through drive-throughs, have kids I need to get in and out of the car. As such, the seat belt hinders me from doing what I need to do as well. If I don't wear it, I get a ticket. If it is the law that you must be wearing a seat belt at all times when driving a car, then police officers should be required to live by that same law. If the law doesn't work for them, then it equally might not work for others. I understand police officers speeding -- when their lights and such are on, but I don't buy that police officers should get to avoid the seat belt law.

As to tickets - my wife just got her first ticket. She's been driving for a long time (decades). It was basically for tailgating. Of course, the police officer pulled in front of her on a road and then didn't accelerate, thus she obviously came up on him quickly and had to hit her brakes. The office then went into the oncoming lane so as to let her pass so he could then pull her over (thus he crossed the middle line, which I also believe is not quite legal). It really felt like entrapment (aka slow ticket day).

The ticket was $15. Of course, it cost nearly $200 once they added all the required fees. You also had to go to court to set a court date, thus meaning you had to take time on at least two days if you choose to fight the ticket. Even if you fought the ticket, they stated you'd have to still pay most of the fees. It was all crazy. We paid the ticket even though I think the cop did it on purpose.

This is a prime case of where I think penalties should start easier and be stacked. This was the first time in over 20 years of driving that my wife had ever been pulled over. She should have gotten a warning at most. In fact, the police officer should have gotten a ticket for not yielding to oncoming traffic.....

Of course, my last ticket was for failing to yield while making a turn (this was also 20 years ago). I was turning left in traffic and people waved me to turn left in front of them. In the third lane, a car actually accelerated to hit me. Because I was turning left, it was automatically my fault even though the other car actually caused the accident. I was in a rental car and the people that hit me had already called the rental agency to say they needed to provide a car for them-- they did this before we were even done talking to the police officers. The cop even apologized for writing me the ticket. He told me that there are many cases where people will wave someone to turn left in front of them (cross traffic), and then accelerate to hit the car. Even though they are waving you on, you are still at fault because you crossed into the oncoming lane. Gotta love people.....

Brad!

[baja_yu]

You could call it perks of the job, or abuse of privileges. Here, cops, ambulances, firetrucks aren't allowed to run red lights even in emergency (rotation and sirens on). I've seen cop cars just briefly flash their lights and run through a red light without slowing down even a bit. It was late at night with minimal traffic but still.

[dclamp]

I'm sorry DClamp - but I wear a cell phone on my belt, have things in my pocket I need to get to when going through drive-throughs, have kids I need to get in and out of the car. As such, the seat belt hinders me from doing what I need to do as well. If I don't wear it, I get a ticket. If it is the law that you must be wearing a seat belt at all times when driving a car, then police officers should be required to live by that same law. If the law doesn't work for them, then it equally might not work for others. I understand police officers speeding -- when their lights and such are on, but I don't buy that police officers should get to avoid the seat belt law.

I dont know if i mentioned, but I work on a CSU campus. We dont wear our belts when we are on campus because we do get out frequently, and we are always driving less than 10mph, mostly 5mph. As soon as we leave campus to go else where (food, etc) we put it on because of the law and because of the safety issue. But it is a professional courtesy for officers to let other officers slide on things.

You could call it perks of the job, or abuse of privileges. Here, cops, ambulances, firetrucks aren't allowed to run red lights even in emergency (rotation and sirens on). I've seen cop cars just briefly flash their lights and run through a red light without slowing down even a bit. It was late at night with minimal traffic but still.

Not sure if it is the same as where you are, but in California we have 4 different codes of importance to a call. Code 1 is low level importance, get to it when you can. Code 2 stop what you are doing, and get there fast, obey laws. Then Code 3 which is get there as soon as you possibly can; lights and sirens; expedite backup. finally Code 4 which is no backup required.

In your case, the officer may have been on a code 2 call, and since there was no traffic, decided to run the light to get there quicker. It all comes down to the type of call it is as well. Felony car stop, they want backup there asap. If its someone who's dog ran away, they wont need any help.

[baja_yu]

Nope, not in the US. There's no such system here, and any emergency service is forbidden to run red lights by law, no exceptions. Although this is almost never enforced. I've seen ambulances go through red lights, although not at full speed but with great caution. I think it's ok, but if you want to go by law, then it's not.

[dclamp]

I think that is unacceptable. They should be allowed to run lights depending on the nature of the emergency. The time it take to get from the hospital to the person and back to the hospital could mean life an death. I know here, you have to be allowed by the watch commander to go code 3. So you can't drive with lights and sirens to any call, you have to be granted permission.

[Milk]

I had the pleasure of a long Ambulance ride in the UK. I asked about what the deal was with running red lights and speed cameras etc. It turns out they get fines just like everyone else. One of the chaps spends a day or so each month writing appeals for all the received penalty notices, in each case he must justify exactly why the offence was made and even then there is no guarantee the fine will be dropped.

[akhileshbc]

Cheers guys... I got my first ticket today, for parking my car making inconvenience to others

But I don't know what happened ! I parked it in a decent manner allowing two buses to go through the road at the same time (side by side).
Even there are both 4 & 2 - wheelers, parked in both ends (ahead and behind my car). It was at 5pm, a cop put the sticker that says "You are booked"

In the meantime, we were at a hotel. This hotel doesn't have a parking area. All of the vehicles to this hotel will parked like what I did. But these damn traffic cops are getting nuts. A half kilometer ahead of that place, there's a maintenance going on the road. But at that place, both sides are filled with cars causing much traffic jams !!! These cops doesn't look those sides

I have to pay a penalty of about 2$ within 15 days

[Shaggy Hiker]

My father was seriously injured by a fire engine running a light, but that was many decades ago. Nobody should be allowed to run a red light for the simple reason that if the light is red for you, it is likely green for somebody else. That pretty much guarantees that cross traffic can't be expected to be watching for you. On the other hand, many newer lights are equipt with sensors that will switch the light to green when they detect certain strobe lights. Many of the lights around me are so equipt, such that emergency vehicles won't normally encounter red lights.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I should add that 'professional courtesy' is a total crock. We have been told that the worst person to give a ticket to is a cop. They seem to expect that they should be allowed to poach fish for free. Not all, of course, but many. Meanwhile, one of my employees gave a ticket to my boss's boss for taking an illegal fish.

[dclamp]

That pretty much guarantees that cross traffic can't be expected to be watching for you. On the other hand, many newer lights are equipt with sensors that will switch the light to green when they detect certain strobe lights. Many of the lights around me are so equipt, such that emergency vehicles won't normally encounter red lights.

Not sure about there, but in CA, in driving school you are taught to look before crossing an intersection regardless of the right-of-way. So if you have a green, check anyway because of fire/police/medic or even drunk/text/phone drivers who are not paying attention. Emergency vehicles around here don't just go straight through the red light full speed however. They slow down almost to a stop and blast their air horn several times before continuing. In addition to having the special lights that change.

[honeybee]

Over here, the emergency vehicles (cops rushing to a crime spot, ambulances carrying patients/accident victims, firetrucks and fire department vehicles on call to an emergency) flash their lights and also blow the siren to alert everyone around that they are on some important call and should be given way. That's how the system should be. What's the use of calling them emergency vehicles if they can't override the normal rules in cases of emergency? Like a person has suffered a heart attack and his wife calls an ambulance, only to be told the ambulance is stuck at a traffic light 500 metres from her house!

And if you hear the siren or see the flashing red/blue/amber lights on top of a vehicle you are supposed to yield, by law. My only complaint is the traffic cops need better training to force the traffic to make way for the emergency vehicles.

Brad, it's sad to see cops indulging in such malpractices. I hope such instances are in minority.

Akhilesh, welcome to the community! Always remember, pointing your finger at other crimes won't help if you have defaulted/broken some law. It would make sense to learn the parking rules/zones and procedures and make sure you steer clear of situations where the cops can use their discretion. If a cop decides that your vehicle is obstructing traffic, he can get it towed away by law. So be within your legal rights and you shall avoid such unpleasant surprises.

Btw, if you are visiting a good hotel, it may also pay to either let the valet park your car, if the hotel offers it, or tip the doorman to keep an eye on your vehicle. It would help avoid getting a parking ticket or worst case, getting the car towed away. At least the doorman can warn you.

.

[akhileshbc]

Akhilesh, welcome to the community! Always remember, pointing your finger at other crimes won't help if you have defaulted/broken some law. It would make sense to learn the parking rules/zones and procedures and make sure you steer clear of situations where the cops can use their discretion. If a cop decides that your vehicle is obstructing traffic, he can get it towed away by law. So be within your legal rights and you shall avoid such unpleasant surprises.

Btw, if you are visiting a good hotel, it may also pay to either let the valet park your car, if the hotel offers it, or tip the doorman to keep an eye on your vehicle. It would help avoid getting a parking ticket or worst case, getting the car towed away. At least the doorman can warn you.
.

There's no place to park the car for a distance of 1 KM ! All cars to this hotel, nearby big shops, etc... (except the BigBazar, which have underground parking lot) are parked like this, all the time. But most of them are parking it in the ladder-like position ( this shape "\" to the road). But what I did was in parallel position to the road ( " | " ), so that it provides more space for the vehicles moving nearby.

The best part for surprise is, we were a weekly/monthly customer to this hotel for years (20+ years. My dad & mom used to go to this hotel since their wedding). We were on a 2-wheeler. But never got a ticket on parking this area ! The same place where the car is parked !

These cops wants to give as much tickets as possible. Because they have a target to be completed. Eventhough, there are several vehicles (luxury) using white light in head lamps (by law we are supposed to use yellow light, isn't it ?), parking in the footpath area, etc.. These cops don't take time to check these crimes or to give a ticket to them

[brad jones]

My understanding is that many stop lights are now automated to where emergency vehicles can send a signal that will change them to green before they get to them. I expect to see more such automation occurring as time goes on.

[honeybee]

My understanding is that many stop lights are now automated to where emergency vehicles can send a signal that will change them to green before they get to them. I expect to see more such automation occurring as time goes on.

And make the drivers dumber? You are probably gonna say they are already as dumb as they could be, but still automating everything would make the humans rely too much on technology. There's a risk people will not be able to make the right decisions because too many decisions are made by computers.

.

[baja_yu]

[quote](by law we are supposed to use yellow light, isn't it ?)[/quote

Interesting. Here you are required to have only white lights on the front.

My understanding is that many stop lights are now automated to where emergency vehicles can send a signal that will change them to green before they get to them.

I haven't seen even one of those here

[Lord Orwell]

i would go for a really harsh punishment first, then an equal, or harsher punishment for each additional time. If people are afraid of the punishment, then they wont do it, and there wont be a next time. I think, if any, the DUI consequences should be as extreme as possible. Especially now that i have been driving a lot later at night, I would rather not have to worry about going into an intersection and having a drunk drive t-bone me.

That happened to my friends mom. She broke several vertebrae, was in the hospital for a few months, and in critical condition. She was close to breaking her spinal cord, killing her. She tried to sue the guy for everything he owned, unfortunately, he owned nothing. He lived with his mom, and she was even in debt.

not to take anything from her, but how did someone determine she "almost" broke a bone? Plus suing, what would that have accomplished? He already would have lost his license for a year minimum with a two thousand dollar reinstatement fee after that, if he didn't go to jail outright for causing an injury.
the simple fact that most people go to prison more than once shows this to be false. But for that matter numbers show that drunk drivers are less likely to cause accidents at night than sober drivers. They manipulate the numbers but i can do it too: http://www.jointogether.org/news/res...e-of-most.html says 25% of drivers are drunk during peak hours.
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-dri...tatistics.html says that 33% of fatal accidents involve drunk drivers. Let's do a number breakdown on that.
there are 4 types of accidents possible at night.
a single car with a sober driver
a single car with a drunk driver
a dual car collision with two sober drivers
a dual car collision with two drunk drivers
a dual car collision with one of each (twice as likely)
if drunk drivers were EQUALLY likely to cause an accident as a sober driver, then you would see 60% of the accidents contain a drunk driver. Since there are half as many drunk drivers as this projection, i will lower this to 30%, which almost exactly matches their 33%. Conclusion? drinking doesn't impair you nearly as much as being up at 2am in the first place. I am not merely spouting numbers either. This was thoroughly tested on mythbusters. Being tired by their results made you a much worse driver than being drunk.
http://mythbustersresults.com/arrow-machine-gun "tipsy vs tired"

The point is that I wasn't driving 45 mph at all time. I was just doing so while overtaking. If you ask me, completing an overtake in as little time as possible is the safest thing to do. If someone is driving 25mph I'm sure as hell wont take 2 minutes driving 29 to overtake him. I put on the gas, get it done and return to driving at normal speed. Here, by law, you are required to finish overtaking in as little time as possible and you have to be driving at least 10mph faster than the person you are overtaking.

the law doesn't make allowances for situations when speeding. You were speeding when overtaking.

while still being reasonably within the speed limit, I assume. That would mean if you have to exceed the speed limit in this situation, you shouldn't be overtaking.

Over here, on 'expressways', I have been frustrated so much by the truckers in each lane playing a game of 'who drives the slowest', that I can sympathize with you, empathize with you. I am even grateful sometimes the cops here don't go for speed radars.

.

don't forget that for some inane reason the speed limit for trucks is usually at least 10mph slower on an expressway than for cars, and they are not only more likely to get a ticket for speeding, their tickets start out in the hundreds of dollars. I had a cdl and i can tell you that truckers have a whole other set of rules to follow when driving, including only being allowed in certain lanes, or on certain roads with colored signs, etc.

This is a prime case of where I think penalties should start easier and be stacked. This was the first time in over 20 years of driving that my wife had ever been pulled over. She should have gotten a warning at most. In fact, the police officer should have gotten a ticket for not yielding to oncoming traffic.....

Of course, my last ticket was for failing to yield while making a turn (this was also 20 years ago). I was turning left in traffic and people waved me to turn left in front of them. In the third lane, a car actually accelerated to hit me. Because I was turning left, it was automatically my fault even though the other car actually caused the accident. I was in a rental car and the people that hit me had already called the rental agency to say they needed to provide a car for them-- they did this before we were even done talking to the police officers. The cop even apologized for writing me the ticket. He told me that there are many cases where people will wave someone to turn left in front of them (cross traffic), and then accelerate to hit the car. Even though they are waving you on, you are still at fault because you crossed into the oncoming lane. Gotta love people.....

Brad!

two points: One: she could have gotten a ticket for passing in the slow lane, which is a much higher fine than speeding, and two: You need to get in the habit of pretending to not see those people. I never, and i mean NEVER move if someone else has the right of way no matter if they are waving me on or not. I've been known to shake my head no, open a book, etc. It becomes clear to them.

Nope, not in the US. There's no such system here, and any emergency service is forbidden to run red lights by law, no exceptions. Although this is almost never enforced. I've seen ambulances go through red lights, although not at full speed but with great caution. I think it's ok, but if you want to go by law, then it's not.

I don't think that is the rule everywhere. Not every city has the auto-change lights. Mine doesn't. I however was behind an ambulance last week going to a pick up and i swear he wasn't even speeding.

I had the pleasure of a long Ambulance ride in the UK. I asked about what the deal was with running red lights and speed cameras etc. It turns out they get fines just like everyone else. One of the chaps spends a day or so each month writing appeals for all the received penalty notices, in each case he must justify exactly why the offence was made and even then there is no guarantee the fine will be dropped.

A friend of mine got fired for getting a ticket while driving an ambulance. Evidently the rules are stricter here. He passed a school bus.

And make the drivers dumber? You are probably gonna say they are already as dumb as they could be, but still automating everything would make the humans rely too much on technology. There's a risk people will not be able to make the right decisions because too many decisions are made by computers.

.

i would say that it is more than this reason. It's most likely to clear the intersection in the direction the ambulance is going so they can actually get through the intersection in the first place. I have seen more than once where an emergency vehicle had to wait for the light to change green because traffic was in every lane and they couldn't get around it.

[baja_yu]

the law doesn't make allowances for situations when speeding. You were speeding when overtaking.

It doesn't make allowances for anything for that matter. But cops still give out warnings in some situations instead of tickets, at their own discretion.
And just because something is 'the law' doesn't make it good, smart and/or logical.

[honeybee]

don't forget that for some inane reason the speed limit for trucks is usually at least 10mph slower on an expressway than for cars, and they are not only more likely to get a ticket for speeding, their tickets start out in the hundreds of dollars. I had a cdl and i can tell you that truckers have a whole other set of rules to follow when driving, including only being allowed in certain lanes, or on certain roads with colored signs, etc.

Oh, you would think their speed limit itself was 10kmph, the way these guys drive. Of course with the kind of loads they are carrying it's not surprising they are running overtaking competitions at speeds less than 10kmph on an expressway (where the max speed on paper is 80kmph).

.