A Simple Solution

By: Eric
Published On: 8/15/2007 12:11:32 PM

I've got a really simple solution.  It wouldn't cost much.  In fact it would probably even pay for itself.  It would be highly effective.  It would be fair to people of all income levels.  It's based on proven existing technology so there is no R&D and very few unknowns.  Sound good?  Sure.  Problem is, you're going to hate it.

I'm talking about the issue here in Virginia this summer - the Civil Remedial Fees (CRFs, or the abusive fees if you prefer).  The solution can't fix the CRFs themselves (they're beyond fixing), but it will fix one of the two stated problems that the CRFs supposedly address.  The two stated problems are, or course, funding and safety.  Now that the CRFs have blown up in a big way, the politicians are scrambling to make the CRFs a public safety issue first and as a byproduct Virginia will also get some much needed transportation improvements on the bad driver's dime. 

There is no need to discuss the funding aspect because we have done so many times already (for those who missed it the first thousand times: the correct answer is a gasoline tax increase) so this particular solution addresses the safety aspect.

The solution I'm talking about?  Speed Cameras. 
Yep - those nasty little things that take a picture of a speeder's license plate and send a ticket to the car's owner in the mail.  I knew you'd hate it. 

But the key question is how/why this is a good solution.  Before I answer that, I'd like to lay out a few details on how it would be implemented - which is a little different than the real world uses I've heard of.

1.  The fines for getting caught by a speed camera should be dirt cheap.  As low as it can be set so the government doesn't lose money writing tickets.  I'm thinking in the range of $10, maybe up to $20.  But no more.  A camera ticket would be a minor slap on the wrist (i.e. a reminder to slow down), not a punishment.

2.  Many, many speed cameras need to be used.  Volume is the key.  Some cameras would be fixed, others would be mobile.  They can, and would, appear all over.  A handful placed infrequently around a county (as they do now in places that use these cameras) would not do the trick - there must enough cameras that there is a reasonable expectation, on the part of the driver, that he/she would likely get a camera ticket if they are speeding.

3.  As many of these speed camera systems currently do, there would be a buffer zone to allow drivers to exceed the speed limit by a reasonable amount before a ticket is issued.  The specific amount could be debated, but I'd guess somewhere around 10 mph over the posted limit.

4.  Like the Red Light Cameras, a Speed Camera ticket would carry no points and would not be assigned to a driver, the ticket is the responsibility of the car's owner regardless of who is driving.  And they can be challenged in court like any other ticket.

Here's the core principle (if you haven't figured it out already):  Due to the large number of these cameras it is fairly likely that a driver who speeds is going to get their picture taken.  The more times a driver speeds or speeds over greater distances, the more they will get caught.  For reasonable/rational drivers (which should cover the majority of drivers), just the knowledge that they will very likely get a ticket for exceeding the limit will cause them to slow down.  And an occasional slap on the wrist of $10 would serve as a simple reminder when they get a little carried away in the speed department.

Is $10 fair?  Absolutely.  For anyone who can afford to drive car, a $10 fine now and then won't break the bank.  Even for the lowest income brackets.  Furthermore, the simple act of exceeding a prescribed speed limit (assuming no accidents were caused, no damage done, and no one hurt) is not a major crime and shouldn't be punished as significantly as it is now.  Consider that in addition to the fine itself, a ticketed driver will also have to pay court costs and, perhaps the biggest financial hit, a few years of higher insurance premiums.  And today the driver could even face the draconian CRFs.  So a $10 smack now and then is not only fair from an income point of view, but also a punishment that fits the crime.

How would this minor fee discourage habitually bad drivers? 

First off, the obvious:  A driver who doesn't get the message and continues to drive above the speed limit will be the recipient of many $10 tickets.  Suppose a driver got 2 per week - over a year that would add up to $1040.  Hmmmm... that number sounds vaguely familiar.  But this time the $1000+ fine would be applied to someone who is clearly a habitual offender.  And the sky is the limit - the more a driver doesn't get the message, the more they will pay. 

And this is where I agree with one of the points CRF supporters make regarding lower income drivers - if you can't afford it don't do the crime.  As noted earlier an occasional $10 fee won't hurt anyone.  But if a low income driver continuously breaks the rules then they have to pay big and I'm all for it.  I'd have zero sympathy for their financial problems given that this speed camera system is very forgiving of basic mistakes.

And the not-so-obvious?  Because the majority will be driving slower the (now) fewer bad drivers will stand out much more.  At this point they become easy targets for... the real police.  Plus, given that the police aren't writing tickets to average drivers they will have more time and resources to focus on the worst drivers.  Double whammy - the bad drivers will stand out more and there will be more police resources to nail them.  And these tickets will be real tickets with the driver points, high fines, court costs, and higher insurance rates.  This aspect also addresses the problem rich people would cause - obviously piles of $10 tickets would not discourage a rich driver, but real tickets will because those tickets come with points that could cost a rich person their license. 

There it is.  A simple solution that addresses the safety issues we're facing - without the insanely unfair and excessive fees/fines imposed by the CRFs.  Is this a feel good solution?  No, not really.  I can't say I love the idea but I will say this: it is far far better than the CRFs both in terms of fairness and effectiveness. 

Comments



Agree in Part (Matt H - 8/15/2007 12:39:34 PM)
But if the fines are only $10, as in your example those who are better off would not really be too concerned with not obeying the speed limits.  For this reason I favor a more equitable measure like having all people who repeatedly pose a threat to others (by either speeding, driving drunk, etc.) simply lose their right to drive. 


That's where (Eric - 8/15/2007 12:48:03 PM)
the real tickets would come into play.  I'm not suggesting we take police off the streets and replace them with these cameras.  The cameras would be the deterrent for average drivers which frees up the police to focus on the remaining speeders - which includes rich people and the habitual bad drivers who won't heed the warning.  And those drivers will quickly lose their licenses as points accumulate from real tickets.


Simple? Hardly (tx2vadem - 8/15/2007 9:33:13 PM)
You are talking about a fairly large capital outlay to install all these cameras and create the electronic network and devices to monitor them all.  You would probably need to upgrade the billing and information systems of the courts in order to handle all of those invoices.  Then you would probably need to contract with a bank for lockbox services to receive and process all those check payments (unless the state treasury already provides that service).  So, I would think given all of those costs $10 may not cut it. 

On top of that problem number one with your solution is that money collected from fines must constitutionally go to the Literacy Fund. 

The General Assembly shall set apart as a permanent and perpetual school fund the present Literary Fund; the proceeds of all public lands donated by Congress for free public school purposes, of all escheated property, of all waste and unappropriated lands, of all property accruing to the Commonwealth by forfeiture except as hereinafter provided, of all fines collected for offenses committed against the Commonwealth, and of the annual interest on the Literary Fund; and such other sums as the General Assembly may appropriate.

So, all those fines would just be increasing education funding.  The GA could just cut General Fund appropriations to education and transfer those funds to the Transportation Fund to make up the difference.  But that is complex and not simple.

Simple will be for the Democrats to win control of both houses of the General Assembly and replace the abuser fees with a two cent gas tax increase (that's if they only want to replace the revenue stream).



Yeah - I may have (Eric - 8/15/2007 11:30:34 PM)
understated at least the set up costs.  So $10 is probably a little optimistic.  But it would be a long term investment so the costs can be spread over many years.

As for the revenue aspect I agree completely.  We need to raise the gasoline tax to fund transportation spending and electing Dems is the only way it will happen. 

However, these speed cameras are strictly for the safety aspect.  One of the things CRF supporters claim is that the new fees will improve traffic safety and this idea is meant to cover that aspect and only that aspect.  So even if it lost money (a modest loss) I'd still be for it because it's an investment in public safety - not a revenue generating construct.