Every time I see this "traffic ticket" thing, it usually looks like
1) The driver was actually speeding
and
2) The driver is trying to get off on a technicality
Is that the case?
In the US do you get "points" on your driving license so that if you are caught speeding several times in the space of a couple of years you get banned?
In the UK being caught mildly speeding (say doing 60 in a 50), in the course of 3 years it's typically
Same in the UK, you have to get lifts or taxis everywhere, unless you live in big cities (London has great public transport, but so does New York. The weekly bus that my sister gets doesn't really help her to travel to work as dozens of different schools all over the county)
It's a very good reason not to speed.
So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding?
Are fines at least proportional to wealth? Or can a rich people speed without problem as saving 10 minutes on their journey is worth the $100 fine even if it was guaranteed they got one?
(In the UK speed is almost entirely enforced by cameras, not by police cars which are rarely seen on roads. Removes any bias the cop might have -- maybe the cop has it in for young tesla drivers so pulls them over, but lets the old guy in a pickup go past)
> So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding?
Well, things vary from state to state. But there is definitely a point system in place for excessive speeding, speeding in a school zone, passing a school bus at any speed, stuff like that. In a lot of places you can be arrested for reckless driving, with varying levels of what defines "reckless." Virginia is notorious for their speeding laws. Speeding in excess of 20mph of the posted limit or in excess of 80mph regardless of limit (e.g. 81 in a 65) is what they consider reckless driving and it's a misdemeanor that could potentially (but not likely) give you a one year jail sentence.
In the US, a small percentage of people drive completely insane.
If going 75mph on a highway that is 65mph or 70mph someone will fly past going a 100mph.
Those are the people that get tickets. Otherwise, it is pretty difficult to even get pulled over.
I have only been pulled over twice in my life and not in 20 years. I think police departments have cut back quite a bit on police trying to rack up traffic tickets.
The fine is not the issue. The whole process is a massive waste of your time.
No, fines are not proportional to wealth (at least in most states). They're either flat fees or pegged to speed. Points on license as well, so ~3 tickets inside a year and you lose your license or have to take a course to keep it.
Most tickets are given by live officers. Cameras do exist, but typically only in dense urban areas. Which opens another can of worms, as police are biased.
We also have lists of secondary offenses the officer can cite only after citing you for speeding (or some other primary offense). Things like a failed light bulb, or some other minor safety issue. These are disproportionately used against PoC.
In the US you get a fine and you get points against you. Points cause your auto insurance to go up. And too many results in restricted or a suspended license. Which doesn't prevent people from driving but usually causes them to drive very conservatively so as not to get caught.
And the parent is correct the much of the US is set up for people to drive so much so that being draconian isn't practical. And it's something to keep in mind that any given individual didn't decide that's how the place they live in is setup.
The US is similar, but we also have other dynamics. Some municipalities rely on traffic tickets for revenue, so they have a perverse incentive to create more infractions. Notable examples are automated ticketing at red light leading to shorter yellows[0], and speed traps where a small town on a highway sets unreasonably low speed limits[1].
For traffic tickets, it is often possible to go to court and have the judge offer a reduced fine for pleading guilty or no contest (you don't admit guilt, but you don't plead innocence and accept the punishment).
Most people, when they want to fight such tickets, think they can argue their way out of it. Whereas the judge and officers simply just want to get the hearings over with. They do hundreds of such hearings a week and have heard it all before. So, the judge will tell the courtroom that they can get a reduction and how to get it. Sadly, the defendants are anxious, have been mentally preparing themselves for a fight, and are in an unfamiliar environment so they tend to get tunnel vision and choose to plead 'not guilty'. They inevitably loose.
If you ever find yourself in such a situation, pay close attention to what the judge offers everyone before the hearings begin. If they don't offer such a bargain, when it is your time to appear before the judge you can ask "would the court consider a reduction in exchange for a plea of no contest?" It doesn't hurt to ask.
True as far as it goes, but bear in mind that a huge proportion of the population speeds routinely. So enforcing the law doesn't feel equitable; the rule of law already doesn't exist on the roads.
1) The driver was actually speeding
and
2) The driver is trying to get off on a technicality
Is that the case?
In the US do you get "points" on your driving license so that if you are caught speeding several times in the space of a couple of years you get banned?
In the UK being caught mildly speeding (say doing 60 in a 50), in the course of 3 years it's typically
1st time: 3 hour course and £100
2nd, 3rd, 4th time: 3 points and £100
5th time: Driving ban and £100 (or more)