Revenue Generating Mechanisms for Cities and States

tripleB said: The more I open my eyes to the real world, the more I see that so many laws are in effect not to help people but to generate revenue.I obey the laws, and am not a source of revenue.

Innocent mistakes aside, this sounds like a rant from someone who had trouble making 2+2=4 but still wanted an "A" on the test.

I had a thought a while back on this matter... a "what if..." scenario where any and all fines (minus specific operating expenses to issue that fine) issued by the government at all levels went into a magical furnace that destroyed the (excess of operating expenses) money so that it eliminates any money driven incentive/conflict of interest to issue fines/citations.

The purpose of fines would then truly be to penalize (or to deter) people for breaking a law and not as a method to close budget gaps from poor fiscal management.

Would never happen but I would like to see the what-if scenario.

What about universities too? The more that I think about it, the more that I think the primary objective of a university is to suck as much money out of your wallet as possible (and screw over the majority of students, faculty, and staff alike).

tripleB said:
I realized today that HOV lanes are revenue-grabs as well. The state comes in and zones one lane as HOV to "help better the environment" by encouraging people to carpool. In reality, all it does is make other traffic worse, and more pollution from more idling cars in the road. Then some people look at the EMPTY HOV lane and say "Screw it" and get a $200 ticket.

NJ actually used the HOV lanes as an excuse to build additional lanes, and then de-HOV'ed them. Possibly one of the few things they did right.

article

HumDoHamaraDo said: The biggest scam is NYC Law where drunk drivers lose their car to the city. The car is then auctioned off, more than 5000 cars have been taken away from their owners. Thanks to Giuliani.

And then NY got addicted to this revenue generation, so new law was put in place in 2000, lose car due to reckless driving. Yup, the subjective opinion of a cop can determine if you lose your car.

NYC

i think its a great idea. If you're going be irresponsible, you lose your car. I also believe that anyone convicted of a vehicular homicide, alcohol related, should lose the driving license permanently in all states. you killed someone because you acted in a very irresponsible manner.

However, (just read the article) the lack of due process in the seizure is an invitation to corruption.

jmackdaddy said:
It's obvious that state and local governments set up things like red-light cameras, radar cameras and speed traps as a source of revenue generation - there is absolutely no safety benefit.So there would be no consequences to eliminating speed limits and traffic control devices at intersections?

These laws do have a huge safety benefit, but they're useless unless enforced. Like it or not, the methods you mention are the most efficient ways of enforcing them.

tripleB said: Glitch99 said: jmackdaddy said:
It's obvious that state and local governments set up things like red-light cameras, radar cameras and speed traps as a source of revenue generation - there is absolutely no safety benefit.So there would be no consequences to eliminating speed limits and traffic control devices at intersections?

The number of rear end collisions at intersections with photo-detection has gone up 300%. Rather than safely going through a yellow light, people are slamming on their brakes at 50 MPH and causing rear end collisions.

drivers, follow at a safe distance from car in front of you.

Grizybaer said: tripleB said: Glitch99 said: jmackdaddy said:
It's obvious that state and local governments set up things like red-light cameras, radar cameras and speed traps as a source of revenue generation - there is absolutely no safety benefit.So there would be no consequences to eliminating speed limits and traffic control devices at intersections?

The number of rear end collisions at intersections with photo-detection has gone up 300%. Rather than safely going through a yellow light, people are slamming on their brakes at 50 MPH and causing rear end collisions.

drivers, follow at a safe distance from car in front of you.
In NY Area, if there is room between you and the car in front of you, someone car will move into that driving spot.

Yet more into Capitalism sucking the value system. I never questioned usually any of the motives but we had a theft and my tenants are giving little tough time in both cases I found no help from any govt. whom I pay what ever.
In ideal case we need a Neural Net self learning gigantic watching machine over all of us to monitor what we are doing falls in line with some arbitrary parameters or off, correct it. Do you want machines? As long as humans are there corruption will be part of it except we use the term for Africa and other nations but for US it is called Capitalism.

davneil said: Yet more into Capitalism sucking the value system. I never questioned usually any of the motives but we had a theft and my tenants are giving little tough time in both cases I found no help from any govt. whom I pay what ever.
In ideal case we need a Neural Net self learning gigantic watching machine over all of us to monitor what we are doing falls in line with some arbitrary parameters or off, correct it. Do you want machines? As long as humans are there corruption will be part of it except we use the term for Africa and other nations but for US it is called Capitalism.Then maybe we should look at why US is doing better than Africa?

Are there lots of traffic cops or HOV lanes in Africa?

Red Light Cameras are a $200+ fine here. bull.

davneil said: Yet more into Capitalism sucking the value system... As long as humans are there corruption will be part of it except we use the term for Africa and other nations but for US it is called Capitalism.

What does unethical government revenue generation have to do with capitalism, socialism, feudalism, or any form of government? It only has to do with size of government and power citizens elect to give it.

kfer said: NYS is changing their license plate design again and charging the drivers a 25 dollar charge to get the new plate, and another 20 dollars if you want to keep you current plate number (so you don't have to change the info with insurance). Now THAT is budget-balancing BS.

Glitch99 said: tripleB said: Glitch99 said: jmackdaddy said:
It's obvious that state and local governments set up things like red-light cameras, radar cameras and speed traps as a source of revenue generation - there is absolutely no safety benefit.So there would be no consequences to eliminating speed limits and traffic control devices at intersections?

The number of rear end collisions at intersections with photo-detection has gone up 300%. Rather than safely going through a yellow light, people are slamming on their brakes at 50 MPH and causing rear end collisions.Bet there is a similar increase when a cop happens to be setting on the corner. The increase in accidents is due to people afraid of being busted doing what they are not supposed to do. As I said, these cameras are just the most efficient way to consistantly enforce a prexisting law, by eliminating a driver's ability to play the odds of not getting caught.

If accidents increase due to enforcing a law, the proper remedy would be to change or eliminate the law, rather than rely on some "honor system" and just hope most drivers comply (and are alert and able to avoid to those who do not).

Or they could simply try other techniques, like increasing the amber light cycle:

Text

Something quoted in that link:The real-world translation here is that according to 1976 practices, an 80-foot-wide intersection with a 35 mph approach on a 2.6 percent downhill grade would warrant a five-second yellow light interval. But according to 1999 formulas, it is considered acceptable to allot the same intersection a 4 second interval. A second might not seem like much. Consider, however, that even automated-enforcement cheerleader Richard Retting of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concedes that yellow-light increases decrease the chance of red-light running incidents. Likewise, Retting's studies show that of drivers classified as "red light runners," 80 percent enter an intersection less than a second after a yellow signal has turned red.

So, we have more cars that can go faster and accelerate faster, and we have slowly decreased the minimum amber light timing. That doesn't make any sense. Consider a 2001 report issued to the House of Representatives:This report suggests there is something that can be done to address this hazard. It cites
examples of problem intersections where yellow times have been raised by about 30 percent and
the number of people entering on red fell dramatically. It cites, in addition, controlled scientific
studies that confirm the hypothesis that longer yellows are better. The following reductions in
red light entries are documented:
Mesa, Arizona 73%
Georgia 75%
Virginia site 1 79%
Virginia site 2 77%
Virginia site 3 Problem “virtually eliminated”
Maryland Problem “virtually eliminated”
It is no coincidence that each of the “problem” intersections mentioned above happened
to have yellow times that fell short by about 30 percent. Today’s formula for calculating yellow
times yields

So, there are obviously two ways to go about reducing, at least the number of red light runnings, and possibly the number of collisions. One is a demonstrably effective method that doesn't increase local government revenue, and the other is ripe for abuse and makes obscene amounts of profits. Guess which one we choose?

pthor1231 said: So, we have more cars that can go faster and accelerate faster, and we have slowly decreased the minimum amber light timing. That doesn't make any sense. I cant argue with most your logic, atleast on the surface it makes sense. However, I find increasing the yellow light time to be nothing but adjusting the rules to accomodate those who cannot otherwise follow them (like lowering the passing grade so less students fail). These policies should be set to a fixed independant standard, not a arbitrary lower standard ment to improve compliance.

I quoted the one comment of yours that I disagree with - although the speed capabilities of cars on the road has increased, the speed limit has not. It shouldnt matter that cars have the ability to go faster, the fact is that they cannot actually go faster without breaking yet another law. The decrease in the standard yellow light time could also be attributed to the improved breaking abilities of cars in 1999 than in 1976.

The fact that extending the yellow time drastically reduces red light violations may also be evidence of people's lack of concentration while driving; they run the light because it takes them an extra second to react than it should. In this case, extending the time would only be endorsing distracted driving, rather than forcing drivers to pay more attention.

scrouds said: Red Light Cameras are a $200+ fine here. bull.

They're $400-500 here in CA now. That's what happens when your state is broke.

Swivelguy said: Wow, the Americanism is strong in this thread. How DARE anyone impede your god-given right to drive your giant freaking car wherever the hell you please! Cyclists and pedestrians be damned! Bring on the global climate change!

What's next, a FWF thread about how childhood obesity should be subsidized because Doritos are cheaper than vegetables?

Article came out in the local orlando paper I like to refer to as the slantinel. Orlando, Fl is the worst city (with a pop of 1mil+) to be a pedestrian. Top 4 was Orlando, Tampa, Miami, and Jacksonville. This is the state of florida telling all pedestrains to stay out of the state.

That being said, you're pretty cynical for a cyclist. Cars and people can co-exist. A lot of places have laws against jaywalking. But most aren't enforced. And its not because running a red light is less safe then jaywalking, its because there's no money in that enforcement.

What we have here is a classic case of a conflict of interest. Nobody should believe that enforcement occurs because of safety when munis make money off of it. They're trying to pass a florida statewide law concerning red light cameras, and the reason its not passed yet is because they are fighting over who gets the money. I can't tell you whether they are really lookign for safety or just bringing home the bacon, but it looks very dirty from my vantage point.

scrouds said: What we have here is a classic case of a conflict of interest. Nobody should believe that enforcement occurs because of safety when munis make money off of it. So if not a cash fine, what should the penalty be for violating traffic laws? Because without consequences there is no reason to obey, creating a free-for-all on the roads....

Glitch99 said: scrouds said: What we have here is a classic case of a conflict of interest. Nobody should believe that enforcement occurs because of safety when munis make money off of it. So if not a cash fine, what should the penalty be for violating traffic laws? Because without consequences there is no reason to obey, creating a free-for-all on the roads....

If the system was not set up to generate revenue, then traffic fines would have been much higher, like in Europe. Drunk drivers lose their licence after the first offence, not 10th. Speeding fines, even in Germany, are much much higher compared to income. Something to the tune of $2000 for driving 10 mph over the limit. Yes, the limits are higher, or absent on the autobahns, but if you are caught speeding, you better be ready to pay up, big time!

The system here, is indeed set up to continuously generate revenue. A more draconian punishment would result in such revenue disappearing, either due to people's unwillingness to break the laws, or because the law breakers won't have the licence to drive, or just went broke and could not afford to drive.

So, the lesson is that if you don't want to pay, don't feed the trolls... i.e. don't break the law, or elect officials who will re-write the law to your liking.