iphish

Californias new traffic laws

Rate this topic

25 posts in this topic

Remind me not to drive here.....

 

Special reminder: California's new traffic fine rules were released on January 1, 2019:
Forgot to carry your driver's license for $214. Forgot to change the address (more than ten days) $214. Uninsured car in accident for $796 ‘and’ driver's license revoked for 4 years. Did not stop at red light or turning right at No Turn on Red $533. Crossing double yellow line for $425. Violation of the turn or U-turn $284. Speeding 1-15 miles $224 16-25 miles $338, usually the police determined that speeding is over 5 miles. On rainy day it is not allowed to exceed 65 miles. 
Stop sign but did not stop $284. Pass the flashing light of school bus $675. Talking on cell phone first time $76, second time $190, same penalty even if you are just holding the cell phone in your hand! Stop at a bus stop $976. Not wearing a seat belt $160. Driving with high beam light (from 30 points) for $382. Child did not wear a seat belt or not in a child seat $436. Covering car door $178. Driving with headphones on $178. Modified Exhaust $1000 each stop.
All the above violations allow you to go to traffic school for 8 hours. If you get a second ticket within 18 months, sorry, you are not a Good Driver and this will drive up your insurance rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is talk of lowering fines for the poor,so those large fines will only be paid by the folks that work.

 

 

Court: Fining California's Poor Is Unconstitutional
By William Vogeler, Esq. on January 10, 2019 2:48 PM
A California appeals court ruled that court fines against poor defendants are unconstitutional.
In People v. Duenas, the Second District Court of Appeals reversed a $220 fee imposed on a woman for misdemeanor driving offenses. Velia Duenas was homeless and disabled, and didn't have the money.
She served over 50 days in jail because she could not afford the fine. The appeals court said that was unjust.
Suspended License Case
Duenas was a teenager when she was first cited. Her license was suspended, but she continued to drive to jobs and to take her children to school.
She received three additional misdemeanor convictions for driving on a suspended license. When she didn't pay the fine, she was ordered to serve time.
On appeal, the Second District said the trial court should have assessed whether she had the ability to pay. Under the circumstances, the appeals court said, the fine served no rational purpose.
"Poor people must face collection efforts solely because of their financial status, an unfair and unnecessary burden that does not accomplish the goal of collecting money," Justice Laurie Zelon wrote for the court.
Wealthy v. Indigent
Zelon said that the collection laws favor the wealthy person by offering "an ultimate outcome that the indigent one will never be able to obtain." The statutory scheme also perpetuates "a cycle of incarceration and impoverishment," she wrote.
Government attorneys argued that it was a problem for the legislature, and the appeals court responded. The panel invited lawmakers to deal with it.
Kathryn Eidman, an attorney with Public Counsel, told Courthouse News that the decision is "a beacon of hope for thousands of vulnerable Californians."

 

 

California traffic fines prey on poor
By Robert Hertzberg and
Emmett D. Carson Special to The Bee
January 08, 2018 04:55 AM

Today, more than at any time, California has an opportunity to continue its leadership in building a fair society. So far, it has missed the mark on an issue that significantly affects more than 4 million residents: traffic fines and fees.
 
Opinion
California has among the highest traffic fines and fees in the country – and the steepest consequences for traffic violations are reserved for those who can’t afford the fines and fees. This results in crippling debt for the least fortunate Californians, from whom traffic courts have difficulty collecting any fees at all.
According to the Federal Reserve, nearly half of American households cannot afford $400 in unexpected costs. Yet in California, if a family misses a payment on a traffic fine, they can be slapped with a $300 late fee, raising the cost to as much as $500 for a ticket. That can be followed by a suspended driver’s license or jail time, even for non-safety related violations, such as late registration. Of course, this makes it less likely they can pay the fines.
Further, studies have unequivocally concluded that establishing fees or fines based on ability to pay, rather than flat rates, increases collections.
Let’s also talk about fairness. It is well-documented that these sky-high fees and fines fall disproportionately on African Americans and Latinos. They are more likely to be stopped for minor offenses, or for no valid reason. Difficulty paying fines often leads to cycles of debt with lifelong implications. A recent report by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, funded by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, found that Bay Area sheriffs were four to 16 times more likely to book African Americans and Latinos into jail for an offense related to failure to pay traffic fines.
So what is the public safety benefit of current levels of fees and fines? When Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill in 2011 that added a new penalty to help alleviate budget cuts, he stated that loading “more and more costs on traffic tickets has been too easy a source of new revenue. Fines should be based on what is reasonable punishment, not on paying for more general fund activities.”
The role of traffic courts should be to protect public safety – not to generate revenue. A recent report by the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice found that courts and law enforcement agencies in Ferguson, Mo., are systematically taking money from poor people.
With all of these facts as a backdrop, Senate Bill 185 was introduced last year. It would create a system of traffic fines and fees that will fairly punish lawbreakers while not sending poor Californians into a spiral of bills and fines that could lead to jail time. The bill will ensure payments are designed to help people make amends, not put them under water. With SB 185, California can change direction and ensure that traffic fees and fines are based on fairness and common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a revolution ever does happen it's going to start in California

The gap between the psycho left leaning urbanites and the rest of the very rural state is becoming wider and wider. Sooner or later something is going to snap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sudsy said:

If a revolution ever does happen it's going to start in California

The gap between the psycho left leaning urbanites and the rest of the very rural state is becoming wider and wider. Sooner or later something is going to snap

:th:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sudsy said:

If a revolution ever does happen it's going to start in California

The gap between the psycho left leaning urbanites and the rest of the very rural state is becoming wider and wider. Sooner or later something is going to snap

No doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sudsy said:

If a revolution ever does happen it's going to start in California

The gap between the psycho left leaning urbanites and the rest of the very rural state is becoming wider and wider. Sooner or later something is going to snap

I’m praying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually alright with a lot of it.  Cell phone use is responsible for many deaths on the road every year.  Driving an uninsured vehicle is absolutely unacceptable, period.

 

Too many people die on our roads every year.  My kid could be next.  Your kid could be next.  I'd rather see our roads reduced to communist intern camps and everyone alive, than to have Mad Max and we get to put a family member in the ground because you had to send a text message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't argue with that but it's the blatant cash grab part that's infuriating

You're fully inured, registered, up to date on everything yet hundreds of $$ in fines because you left your wallet on the kitchen table ?

Wait, that sounds like NJ !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeyZac said:

I'm actually alright with a lot of it.  Cell phone use is responsible for many deaths on the road every year.  Driving an uninsured vehicle is absolutely unacceptable, period.

 

Too many people die on our roads every year.  My kid could be next.  Your kid could be next.  I'd rather see our roads reduced to communist intern camps and everyone alive, than to have Mad Max and we get to put a family member in the ground because you had to send a text message.

We’re talking about the discrepancy in fines, depending on your income. If you’re alright with that, you’re sick in the head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, charloots said:

We’re talking about the discrepancy in fines, depending on your income. If you’re alright with that, you’re sick in the head.

 

I didn't see anything about income levels in the first post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JoeyZac said:

 

I didn't see anything about income levels in the first post?

It's in Jetty Jumpers post

On 1/11/2019 at 0:42 AM, Jetty Jumper said:

There is talk of lowering fines for the poor,so those large fines will only be paid by the folks that work.

 

 

Court: Fining California's Poor Is Unconstitutional
By William Vogeler, Esq. on January 10, 2019 2:48 PM
A California appeals court ruled that court fines against poor defendants are unconstitutional.
In People v. Duenas, the Second District Court of Appeals reversed a $220 fee imposed on a woman for misdemeanor driving offenses. Velia Duenas was homeless and disabled, and didn't have the money.
She served over 50 days in jail because she could not afford the fine. The appeals court said that was unjust.
Suspended License Case
Duenas was a teenager when she was first cited. Her license was suspended, but she continued to drive to jobs and to take her children to school.
She received three additional misdemeanor convictions for driving on a suspended license. When she didn't pay the fine, she was ordered to serve time.
On appeal, the Second District said the trial court should have assessed whether she had the ability to pay. Under the circumstances, the appeals court said, the fine served no rational purpose.
"Poor people must face collection efforts solely because of their financial status, an unfair and unnecessary burden that does not accomplish the goal of collecting money," Justice Laurie Zelon wrote for the court.
Wealthy v. Indigent
Zelon said that the collection laws favor the wealthy person by offering "an ultimate outcome that the indigent one will never be able to obtain." The statutory scheme also perpetuates "a cycle of incarceration and impoverishment," she wrote.
Government attorneys argued that it was a problem for the legislature, and the appeals court responded. The panel invited lawmakers to deal with it.
Kathryn Eidman, an attorney with Public Counsel, told Courthouse News that the decision is "a beacon of hope for thousands of vulnerable Californians."

 

 

California traffic fines prey on poor
By Robert Hertzberg and
Emmett D. Carson Special to The Bee
January 08, 2018 04:55 AM

Today, more than at any time, California has an opportunity to continue its leadership in building a fair society. So far, it has missed the mark on an issue that significantly affects more than 4 million residents: traffic fines and fees.
 
Opinion
California has among the highest traffic fines and fees in the country – and the steepest consequences for traffic violations are reserved for those who can’t afford the fines and fees. This results in crippling debt for the least fortunate Californians, from whom traffic courts have difficulty collecting any fees at all.
According to the Federal Reserve, nearly half of American households cannot afford $400 in unexpected costs. Yet in California, if a family misses a payment on a traffic fine, they can be slapped with a $300 late fee, raising the cost to as much as $500 for a ticket. That can be followed by a suspended driver’s license or jail time, even for non-safety related violations, such as late registration. Of course, this makes it less likely they can pay the fines.
Further, studies have unequivocally concluded that establishing fees or fines based on ability to pay, rather than flat rates, increases collections.
Let’s also talk about fairness. It is well-documented that these sky-high fees and fines fall disproportionately on African Americans and Latinos. They are more likely to be stopped for minor offenses, or for no valid reason. Difficulty paying fines often leads to cycles of debt with lifelong implications. A recent report by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, funded by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, found that Bay Area sheriffs were four to 16 times more likely to book African Americans and Latinos into jail for an offense related to failure to pay traffic fines.
So what is the public safety benefit of current levels of fees and fines? When Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill in 2011 that added a new penalty to help alleviate budget cuts, he stated that loading “more and more costs on traffic tickets has been too easy a source of new revenue. Fines should be based on what is reasonable punishment, not on paying for more general fund activities.”
The role of traffic courts should be to protect public safety – not to generate revenue. A recent report by the Civil Rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice found that courts and law enforcement agencies in Ferguson, Mo., are systematically taking money from poor people.
With all of these facts as a backdrop, Senate Bill 185 was introduced last year. It would create a system of traffic fines and fees that will fairly punish lawbreakers while not sending poor Californians into a spiral of bills and fines that could lead to jail time. The bill will ensure payments are designed to help people make amends, not put them under water. With SB 185, California can change direction and ensure that traffic fees and fines are based on fairness and common sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.