Sykes is one of the rotating hosts of The Daily Show and she had a good segment about how some local communities use speeding tickets as a source of revenue, by adding all manner of other fees to the fine itself. They even put poor people in jail for inability to pay the fines, and then add on more costs to pay for their incarceration.
She says that these fines are hardly a deterrent for rich people and recommends the model of some countries like Finland where the penalty is proportional to a person’s income, and where a Nokia executive got hit with a $103,000 speeding ticket.
Isn’t that the scam that sparked the riots in Ferguson a few years ago?
@ardipithecus:
Pretty much, yes. And specifically the continuing version of it where you put somebody in prison for not paying debts and then charge them for their prison time so they’re even deeper in debt and less likely to be able to pay it off.
Only in America could you raise money from “poor people” by pulling them over in their cars.
And speaking as someone who was nicked for speeding less than four weeks ago, in broad, clear daylight on a dry Sunday lunchtime on a half-empty motorway (the M62) for doing 49mph (on a stretch of road where the normal speed limit is 70mph, but because it’s a “smart motorway” they can vary the limits at will), I have zero sympathy for anyone nicked for speeding. Don’t want a ticket? Don’t speed. Not complicated. It’s a voluntary tax. If some places are winding up the extras, well, OK, that’s bad, and if some cops are nicking people who aren’t even speeding, well OK then. But nothing in that video said or even implied that people who weren’t speeding were getting fined. If you were going over the limit, pay up and shut the fuck up, because you volunteered for that.
sonofrojblake
1. Disproportionate punishment is not just. You seem to be saying “I don’t care”. Check your rhetoric.
2. Speeding tickets are easily applied maliciously and capriciously to perpetuate endemic racism.
GerrardOfTitanServer
1. What is “proportionate” punishment for getting into a tonne (hang on, it’s the US… two or three tonnes) of steel and barreling down the public highway faster than the authorities say it’s safe to do so? $30 is the base amount mentioned in the video. I’ve just been fined four times that. If the excess charges like the bullshit “processing fee” don’t at least quadruple the base ticket figure, I can’t see them as being disproportionate. Know anyone killed or injured by a speeding driver? I do. Check your rhetoric.
2. Positing facts not in evidence. Nothing in the video said or even suggested that tickets were being given to people who weren’t speeding. If you’re suggesting the people doing the speeding are disproportionately people of colour, you’re the one perpetuating racism.
Oh come on.
sonofrojblake @5, point 2: nobody was suggesting that the folks who got tickets weren’t speeding. The suggestion is that cops might give white folks a break for minor speeding (like 10mph or less over the limit), but would eagerly stop non-whites for even minor infractions.
what about when the cop lies, and says someone was doing 65 in a 45 (when they were actually doing 43)? what recourse does the motorist have, unless they have some sort of independently verifiable information that they were not exceeding 45? Regular folk need to provide an abundance of proof to overrule what a cop claims happened, often clear video evidence isn’t even sufficient…
@7:
“nobody was suggesting that the folks who got tickets weren’t speeding”
All volunteers then. Good.
“what about when the cop lies,”
When someone posts a video that says that is going on, then that should absolutely get talked about. Meanwhile, we have what we have.
This just seems so heartless. This and other stuff you wrote appears to embrace a retributivist theory of justice, which I find abhorrent. That is what is rubbing me the wrong way.
Aside, @8: in civilised countries, speeding infractions are measured and recorded on equipment with calibration certs in date. Gatsos don’t give a shit what colour your skin is (or whether you can afford the fine you’re volunteering for).
@10: what’s your proposed alternative? A jolly good telling off? Answer the question i asked in #5 before responding to that.
sonofrojblake
I didn’t attack speeding fines. I attacked your message about lack of sympathy. I encourage you to read for comprehension.
I don’t know anyone killed by a speeder or reckless driver. I know that I will always strive to have sympathy for everyone, including the worst imaginable criminals. This is who I chose to be, because to be otherwise is to be heartless and mere moments away from being (needlessly) cruel. Never deny the humanity in everyone. Just what you said seemed so… sorry to use the word again … but heartless. Remorseless. Like you wouldn’t lift a finger to help a speeder who needed medical attention after an accident.
I have a better description. Like you’ve given into hate, and you’re letting hate consume you, and even encouraging more of the same hate. Don’t do that. That path does not end well for you.
I guessed as much. I doesn’t seem to have crossed what I’m going to call your “mind” to wonder if this is relevant.
Wow. Fantasist much? How dare you suggest such a thing.
I stated I have no sympathy for car drivers whining about a financial burden they volunteered for and deserve. You’ve made a HUUUUUGE leap to me “letting hate consume me” to the point that I lack the most basic humanity. I encourage YOU to read for comprehension, and ideally as a bonus refrain from dreaming shit up and accusing people of being borderline psychopaths based on shit you dreamed up.
“what about when the cop lies,”
When someone posts a video that says that is going on, then that should absolutely get talked about. Meanwhile, we have what we have.
wait, what? do you not think that cops lie?
FWIW, I’m in the US, and, well, I think there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence, that cops, do in fact lie, about nearly everything, all of the time. I noted your snipe in @ 11, and while I can’t disagree with it, it doesn’t change the fact that cops fucking lie. about everything. all of the time. and it’s completely legal.
Side note, I’m a bicycle commuter, and on a very frequent basis, my life is directly threatened by inattentive, impatient, aggressive, and often just careless automobile drivers. I get frustrated at the amount of speeding, reckless driving, distracted driving, aggressive driving, and sometimes outright threatening driving I encounter on a nearly daily basis (and, I’m lucky, a very small part of my commute is on roads…). But, as much as I want the situation to change, I don’t think the answer is to throw more cops at the problem and punish more people. The better answer is to build better systems that manage/mitigates human’s failings. make the roads and intersections in such a way that running red lights and speeding are less rewarding and more difficult. Build the streets and such that it encourages to navigate the streets at a safe speed.
carbrain is just fucking mental, through and back, jfc…
Did I say that? Of course I don’t think cops don’t lie, I’m not a fucking idiot and I’m more than aware of the evidence. But like I said, that’s not what this is about. If you want to make it about that, well, y’know… get Wanda Sykes to make a video about it. (And while you’re at it, ask yourself why you’re so keen to deflect the topic from what it’s really about…) Until then, we’re talking about people who WERE speeding in their cars moaning about getting caught and having to pay.
And if anyone at all pops up and suggests that that is a solution, I’ll be right there with you disagreeing. Did anyone suggest that? I must have missed it. Meanwhile, of the four times I’ve volunteered to pay extra to drive my car fast, only the first time over 25 years ago involved a human. All the other times I was nicked by an automated camera that didn’t give two shits about my race, age or financial status, it just took a couple of pictures and sent me a letter. Despite having been very recently caught bang to rights by one of these automated systems, I’m still all in favour of them. If you, a cyclist, aren’t, well, colour me baffled.
Cameras aren’t allowed to issue speeding tickets in MN. The problem in the OP isn’t speeding, it is city’s that are using speeding tickets to make money via added fees and fines on top of the speeding ticket.
It’s a tax on being poor, and as noted, often is used as a pretext for a traffic stop when driving while black.
Well there’s a problem right there. I’ll stick my neck out and guess that that’s because the cameras, not caring about the colour of the driver, might snag too many white people.
Cities can only make extra bunce from people who are speeding if those people volunteer in the first place. Again -- there’s no suggestion in the video (unless I missed it -- do tell me where…) that the people subject to these charges weren’t speeding. In which case -- that’s very much their problem.
Er, no -- it’s a tax on SPEEDING. Stop speeding, stop being subject to the tax.
And again, bringing up the very common “driving while black” thing is just deflecting. Yes, that happens, yes that’s dreadful -- but that’s not what the video was about.
It’s weird how people are so keen to jump to the defence of people who speed. Guilty conscience?
Nobody is talking about the speeding fine.
The cities who add administrative fees and surcharges as a profit making endeavor are the actual problem noted in the OP.
Cameras can’t ascertain who is driving the car, so the tickets issued by cameras were ruled unconstitutional. Due process might be involved too, not to mention privacy rights.
Interesting. In the UK it works like this: if my car gets snapped by a camera, the camera operator applies to the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Agency for the contact details of the “registered keeper” (i.e. me). Only legit bodies can get that info, they don’t just hand it out.
I then get a letter (a “notice of intended prosecution”) telling me my car was snapped. I now have two options:
1. say “it’s a fair cop”, hold my hand up and take whatever they hand out. This may be a fine and points on my driving licence, or if the speeding wasn’t egregious (e.g. less than about 10mph over the limit) a mandatory training course (which costs as much as the fine, is provided by a private company arguably profiting off speeders, but is statistically proven to reduce reoffending).
2. say “it wasn’t me guv”, and immediately provide the contact details of the person who was driving at the time of the offence. They will in turn be dealt with as in (1).
3. Go to court. This is almost never a good idea unless you’re really rich and have a very good lawyer.
Note the absence of any option to deny knowledge of who was driving. As the registered keeper, that car’s behaviour is your responsibility. This system seems to work pretty well, as long as people don’t abuse it by e.g. getting their spouse to take the points for them. ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-convicted-chris-huhne )
But hey, if an automated roadside camera is unconstitutional that’s terrible, much better and more efficient to have individual cars flagged down and dealt with by armed racists, eh?
(Aside: the link in the previous post is to a newspaper story from almost exactly ten years ago. However, it’s actually quite topical today… https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/01/isabel-oakeshott-the-journalist-who-turned-over-matt-hancock )
Oh, and
is just false. They can. Not all of them do, but:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/cameras/speed-cameras/
Specifically:
“The rear-facing Gatso might be the most ‘popular’ camera on the road, but it’s accompanied by the Truvelo, which uses a forward-facing camera to catch speeding motorists. Unlike the Gatso, it photographs the driver at the wheel, meaning there’s no disputing who was at the wheel at the time of the offence.”
Going on about cameras is ignoring the actual point that they are illegal here.
Minnesota is pretty good about upholding constitutional rights. I find it very odd that sonofrojblake believes America should institute a surveillance state, despite the 4th Amendment. We prefer our taxes be used to pay humans to deal with speeding, which is not a criminal act.
Frankly, most drivers here tend to follow the speed of traffic on the highways, which is usually about 10 mph faster than the posted limit.
And speaking as someone who was nicked for speeding less than four weeks ago, in broad, clear daylight on a dry Sunday lunchtime on a half-empty motorway (the M62) for doing 49mph (on a stretch of road where the normal speed limit is 70mph, but because it’s a “smart motorway” they can vary the limits at will)…
If that got you a “speeding” ticket, then that was capricious and unfair in itself. (It MIGHT be “obstruction of traffic” or some such, if you were driving that much slower than expected.)
…I have zero sympathy for anyone nicked for speeding.
So you were treated unfairly, and that leads you to have “zero sympathy” for others who are treated unfairly. This is how injustice and abuse are perpetuated. Do you really WANT to knowingly be a part of the problem?
John Oliver talked about this same thing a couple years ago, and he mentioned that in many cases all those late fees, “administrative costs” and other penalties are collected by private companies, not the state, and those companies get to skim their share off before the state gets anything. And this privatization just adds another layer of injustice. All those traffic rules are PUBLIC laws, made and enforced by PUBLIC officials paid by PUBLIC funds; so any fines charged for violating public laws should go ONLY to the state, never to any private entity; and the same goes for any late fees or other additional penalties.
@sonofrojblake @3
Did you forget to prefix your comment with Dear Muslima ?
I dislike driving and I only learnt it much later in life when I came to a country that forced me to learn it . At that time the word speed limit seemed to imply to me the value that you should be safely under -- that what a limit means after all. All my friends (and the driving tutor) said no -- it means you drive at that speed and for your safety you should probably always match the people in your lane -- Dont drive slower than them even if they are higher than the limit (+-5 to +- 10 , dont drive faster than them. After 6 months of driving below the speed limit I realized that their words had truth and switched from driving below to driving at whatever everyone else is going at. And so in the decade since , I have one speeding ticket for driving at 70 in a 65 freeway , even when most others were driving at 75 because the mistake I made was I overtook a motorcyclist who happened to also be a cop.
sonofrojblake @19 got it exactly right when he proposed why the cameras are illegal. The US Constitution was written specifically for white men to be in a superior position of power. And even after all of those Amendments, there are myriad ways for this to remain so. Declaring a camera as a violation of the 4th while not declaring a policeman hiding behind a billboard not a violation is one of those ways. Both are equally “surveillance state”, but one has been found constitutional and the white man wins again because ACAB.
sonofrojblake
On the other hand, actually having watched that video, I noticed that the fines and egregious additional charges mentioned were for traffic violations. Speeding was mentioned in reference to very high fines for very high-income Europeans. The other time speeding came up was during the “Broke Lane” joke segment where misuse by the unbroke would be tasered.
Privacy is a basic right. MN has consistently ruled that police surveillance and tickets issued by cameras are violations of privacy and due process.
Much more at the link:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/location-tracking/you-are-being-tracked
Tethys, that’s so unusual I took a quick look.
I think the gist sorta what you claim, but also that it’s in the wind.
cf. https://www.house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/17309
Minneapolis police are indeed attempting to get speeding tickets via cop-camera approved by the City.
In light of the legal precedents on red-light cameras in Minneapolis of 2005, and the general publics opinion of the Minneapolis police in light of George Floyd’s murder and the ensuing civil unrest, I doubt they will get them.
Tethys, you make sound even weirder; so, on the basis of privacy concerns about police surveillance, the idea that the police need not be the only source of surveillance has hitherto been repudiated.
In short, if anyone is gonna get booked for speeding, it has to be done via an actual copper actually doing it, and this can only be legitimate if the police officer(s) in question themselves acquire the evidence, because having an unattended camera acquiring the evidence is too intrusive, unlike having a copper actually watching you.
Incidentally, there has been mention of the police having some discretion as to whether to actually issue fines, which to me (again) seems weird in the light of the low opinion you claim the public has of them.
Just as there is no speed limit on the autobahn, there are places in the US where you can drive as fast as you like. States have varying laws as to speed limits, but Federal 4th Amendment rights are involved in policing.
MN consistently finds automatic ticketing systems in violation of civil liberties involving privacy and due process.
The citizens (and some outside agitators who are currently in jail) of Minneapolis burned the Ward 6 police station to the ground, so I’m quite certain they aren’t going to approve giving the same police tax dollars so they can buy and install the latest spy tech cameras on city streets.
@Tethys, 24:
Stop fucking whining about the consequences then. All I’m pointing out is that civilised countries have a demonstrably unbiased system they’re happy with, but if, as you say, you prefer to equip armed racists to use their discretion in enforcing the law, well, OK then.
Then not a single one of them has any business bleating about the consequences of so doing.
@Raging Bee, 25:
Well, no -- there was a posted speed limit. I exceeded it. In context and at the time to me, with my limited access to information, the limit didn’t seem appropriate, but crucially deciding what the speed limit should be is not my job. I’ll concede it’s baffling and annoying, but even as I grit my teeth and pay for it I won’t say it’s unfair. I either didn’t see or actively ignored the signs. That’s on me.
@Deepak Shetty, 26:
No idea what the Dear Muslima reference means, sorry (I mean, I know what Dear Muslima was, but I have no idea how it’s relevant here.)
Good grief! Who forced you to move? What law requires driving ability? How do people who can’t afford cars comply with the law? And so on. Bullshit, in other words. Driving is not compulsory. Also, I simply don’t believe a driving tutor told you to break the speed limit. You’re just making that shit up. I believe everyone else told you that, but an instructor? No. Bullshit.
@Tethys, 29:
You’ve really got one on you about this, clearly, and I’m not going to win any argument about whether cameras are legal because they’re obviously not, which is fine. You’ve already stated you prefer giving armed racists discretion in enforcing the law rather than applying a proven bias-free technological solution, even though you can predict the result of that and the data supports that prediction.
I would point out that traffic enforcement cameras are not “surveillance” in the sense you seem to be describing. They don’t take a video or even a still picture of every single car going past. They have a blind doppler speed sensor which, only when it senses a speeding car, triggers a camera to take a couple of still pictures of the car. This tech just watches ONE stretch of road and ONLY takes a still picture of the back of a speeding car. If that’s unacceptable surveillance to you people, AND you state baldly that you basically all speed, well, it sound like you actively want to provoke personal face to face confrontations with armed racists, then complain about the consequences. Yes?
@sonofrojblake @34
You compare the poor in relatively wealthy countries with others . The comparison did remind me of the treatment of women in the west vs more Islamic countries.
Did I say that ? The statement was forced to buy a car . I used to stay opposite my place of work , (Michigan) and in winter I had no alternate to buy a car.
Im “forced” to get up every day and goto work -- but there is no law compelling me to work -- but it would probably not be a good survival strategy.
The statement was driving was safe when you drive at the speed everyone else drives(. Typical beginners like me would slow down to change lanes and then jerk the wheel). So no he didnt explicitly state it. The implication though is that if everyone is over the speed limit then you have to do that too which is what everyone else says too(IF you want to be safe , but hey no compulsion!). Thats borne out by experience too and everyone says no cop gives you a ticket for 5 over the limit and thats true over the decade now -- except once.
@sonofrojblake
You are the person having trouble understanding the concept that NOBODY is complaining about the fact that police issue speeding tickets.
Yep, Minnesotans do speed. You will only get a ticket if you are being egregious about it, and you happen to encounter a cop at the same time.
Minneapolis in particular is the poster child for murderous racist police forces, so No, they aren’t getting any tax dollars to install an unconstitutional, expensive camera system to issue speeding tickets.
sonofrojblake
For the record, I think you’ve sold me on using cameras to issue speeding tickets compared to relying on humans and traffic stops to do it.