Fines.- Enforcement or Revenue.

Grossly exceeding the speed limit such as you describe usually moves the offense from a misdemeanor infraction to a more serious felony that can include jail time.

All fines generate revenue. Depending on the jurisdiction the disposition of the revenue may be prescribed by law. Generally speaking in the US, the revenue is deposited to the jurisdiction's general fund. In some cases a specific infraction will cause the revenue to be credited to a specific account.

Well, people loose their licenses all the time but that doesn't stop them from driving. A case could be made for impoundment, and depending on the offense, vehicles are often seized.

That appears to be the main complaint of many. They feel it a law enforcement officer doesn't see the infraction, it shouldn't count against them. Of course, if they are stopped by an officer enforcing traffic laws the usual rant is "Why aren't you out catching robbers or something?" or "What's the matter, you need to make a quota?" One of the goals of one department was that each officer was to make five citizen contacts per shift. That was to get us out of the cars. Contact could be in the form of a traffic stop or follow-up on a complaint. I've seen officers spend 4 or more shifts without ever once getting out of their car.

One of the better contact methods we employed was to park the car and walk through a park. It stopped a lot of activity and the citizens really appreciated seeing an officer taking an interest in the neighborhood. You would be surprised at what we would learn.

One day, maybe even within our lifetimes, we will see the human component of driving reduced to the point where this discussion will seem dated.(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33591971/ns/technology_and_scien...). But until then...

So, the way you framed the issue is that fines are inevitable because people will break the established laws and that some sort of monetary punishment is necessary to keep transgressions in check.

I fully understand that traffic has to be regulated but I disagree that punishment need be the primary means of regulation. Perhaps we should look beyond just the punitive model and look at the larger picture as discussed in J. J. Leeming’s, Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish?.
http://www.quintapress.com/leeming.html.

Now understand, I'm not saying focus solely on the system to absolve the individual of responsibility, far from it. I just believe that the situation shouldn't be such that transgression and subsequent punishment comes from faulty design apart from the exercise of free will. If however, the transgression comes directly from free volition then some measure of retribution should be forthcoming.

http://www.wreg.com/wreg-redlight2-story,0,3910006.story

I wonder about the value of strict enforcement in such relatively minor things such as 'nosing over the first white line by an inch'. Won’t the gradual accumulation of such acts of strict enforcement cross over into what is termed oppressive, in that people do not feel free due to fear of the omniscient eye of the police camera, thus leading to the exact opposite of what the cameras were to instill?

Speaking of cameras, look at the progression of where society is going: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870453840457453...

Good or bad, in this time of technological wonder, you gotta wonder what happened to wisdom? Isn't that in part why we have judges and juries rather than only rely on administrative justice or conviction by camera?

I suppose though if it’s condensed down to a matter of time then the expediency of plea bargaining trumps over the cumbersome procedure of due process.

Not2Bright said in part..

Not that I'm advocating breaking the law, but it has been found that a punishment like the above affects more than just the driver.. it also affects the drivers family.

There are cases in which the above has lead to people who have lost their jobs, homes, spouses and kids.. and all because of a traffic infraction?

I think there's got to be a better way.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Nuvi1300WTGPS@Gmail.com

Well, there has been a fundamental change in the philosophy of traffic engineering and violation enforcement.

30 years ago if there were a lot of accidents or citations issued at a particular intersection, traffic engineers would find a way to change things to resolve the problem. The goal of government was safe roads and intersections. If there were accidents the yellow light time would be extended, for example.

Traffic signals were timed to prevent accidents.

Traffic speed studies were conducted (still are sometimes, I think) to determine the prevailing speed on a road and the speed limit signs were changed accordingly.

Now, enforcement is the goal and little effort is spent on preventing accidents or even violations.

In the past, taxes tended to cover most public services. Over the last decade however funding for some enforcement agencies has been limited, and they have been directed to reduce their budget or find other revenue streams to cover the over run.

We all expect a variety of services from governmental agencies - road maintenance, policing, etc. But we do not want our taxes to go up. So enforcement agencies turn to ticketing as a relatively easy way to enhance their bottom line. Ticketing is a combination of a "user pay system" and a "sin tax".

I believe that revenue is the reason for the cameras, etc is revenue based and not enforcement.